TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
3
UWM Strategic Plan & Message Map Summaries
8
Study Methodology
13
Previous Community Research
17
Community Needs Survey
18
Community Conversations
20
Targeted Survey
22
Focus Groups
24
World Cafés
27
Inventory of Programs
29
Themes
32
Summary of Findings by Area
35
Integration & Analysis
59
Rationale
63
Conclusion
66
Appendix A – Sources Cited
69
Appendix B – Biographies
73
Community Assessment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Assessment
In 2011, United Way of the Midlands’ (UWM) Board of Directors convened a task force to develop a robust
and meaningful strategic plan that would best position the organization to serve the area’s most vulnerable
populations, in a community that has evolved substantially since UWM opened in 1923. Through this strategic
planning process, as well as through multiple input sessions, the need for UWM to create focus and priority
became clear.
To gain a better understanding of the challenges currently facing our most vulnerable neighbors, UWM partnered
with the Iowa West Foundation (IWF), Omaha Community Foundation (OCF) and with the support of the ConAgra
Foods Foundation to conduct a comprehensive community assessment in Douglas, Sarpy and Pottawattamie
counties. In total, nearly 4,700 community members participated in various portions of the study, resulting
in collection of qualitative and quantitative data through surveys, focus groups and interactive world café
discussions.
At the conclusion of the assessment, UWM management provided recommendations to the UWM Board for the
organization’s future direction. United Way’s Board of directors approved the proposals on March 25.
Through the work of the community assessment, many complex problems were identified and discussed
recognizing that several interrelating causes cannot easily be isolated. To examine a complex problem, a system
must be employed to address and, likely more realistically influence the issues.
Through the assessment, seven themes emerged:
1. Transportation
2. Healthcare
3. Education – Early Childhood
4. Safety
5. Education – School Aged Children
6. Jobs and Opportunity
7. Basic Needs
In both the strategic planning process and throughout discussion in the newly-formed UWM Board of Directors,
UWM’s ongoing commitment to providing support to basic needs has been confirmed and formalized.
The Assessment’s Roots in Strategic Planning:
During the strategic planning process in 2011, we gathered input from Board Members, donors and United
Way’s funded partner agencies. Board members stated that UWM should leverage its unique position to provide
leadership and collaborate with other community funders. Additionally, UWM would need to more clearly
communicate its local impact and value proposition. Since the community’s needs often outweigh the funds
raised, focus and prioritization are critical.
UWM donors indicated the organization is in a unique position in the community, by virtue of its breadth
and diverse set of relationships. As mentioned by one stakeholder, “UWM has unique opportunities to bring
the community together.” However, donors differed in how this might be done and how to define leadership.
Additionally, they indicated there is more money available for funding in the community when donors are made
aware of work underway on local issues.
When asked about the strengths and best role of UWM, the funded agencies responded that the organization
can provide support for things that are difficult to fund in other ways, such as capacity- building and
unrestricted funding. Some perceived UWM as well-positioned to play a leadership role of facilitating
collaboration and coordination, in partnership with and between agencies. This group indicated that, in the
past, UWM had not listened well to those in need and historically has not been successful in taking a leadership
role.
In the pursuit of clear communication and messaging, United Way engaged the firm of Bailey Lauerman to
conduct focus groups with stakeholders, including donors. Participants expressed the importance of making a
connection with the next generation of donors. More importantly, participants stated that UWM must maintain
Community Assessment
and increase both donor engagement and public understanding of a finite number of priorities, versus funding
a broad spectrum of programs with minimal impact. The established priorities must be specific, clear and
measurable.
2013/2014 Community Assessment Overview:
Wilder Research was engaged to gather data and previous research studies that were conducted in the metro
area. A community survey was deployed in summer 2013 using a multi-method collection approach. Next, four
Community Conversations were held in locations throughout the region UWM serves, allowing for collection of
data at the neighborhood level. These initial inputs provided topics for further discovery. Subject matter experts
were consulted to help categorize the feedback from this research into themes. The identified themes were then
utilized to develop the items used for the targeted survey, focus groups and World Cafés. To ensure validity,
UWM reviewed data by demographic (all respondents, and those with household income of less than $50,000).
Strong alignment across these populations existed, providing a “green light” to gather feedback from community
residents in need. In January 2014, a targeted survey was launched using specific qualifying criteria. As a
second input from this demographic, UWM engaged professional facilitator Deb Burnight to conduct 13 focus
groups exploring each of the themes.
All data collected was assimilated prior to the launch of four World Café sessions, whose participants included
community leaders, stakeholders, corporate leaders, donors, funders, CEOs of service providers, government
representatives, and policy makers.
The following is a brief summary of findings from across the collection methods for each of the themes explored.
TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY
A vast majority (88%) of respondents across all three counties felt that reliable public transportation was
important to the quality of life in this community, but those making less than $50,000 were more likely to view
reliable public transportation as important to quality of life than more affluent respondents.
HEALTH SUMMARY
More than 90% of South Omaha attendees said they had trouble accessing mental health and dental care. More
than 80% of the guests at the North Omaha conversation agreed. Nearly 90% of Council Bluffs participants
reported the biggest issue was access to mental health care, while in West Omaha health, dental and mental
health care was less of a problem.
EARLY EDUCATION SUMMARY
An overwhelming majority of Community Assessment survey respondents (85%) agreed that there are adequate
resources to prepare children for kindergarten in the three-county metro area, though the cost of childcare
did surface as a significant concern in the general community-wide survey. Focus group attendees reported
that their own work schedules and other conflicts often make it difficult to attend registration and orientation
programs at the pre-kindergarten child care sites.
SAFETY SUMMARY
Nearly all (97%) of the respondents from the three-county metro area said a safe neighborhood is important
for their quality of life. 56% list crime and safety as one of their biggest concerns. (This includes gangs, drugs,
guns and sexually-transmitted disease.) In the metro-wide survey, 85% of respondents agreed “this community
is a safe place to live.” However, 97% of African American and Hispanic respondents reported that crime/safety
was a problem in their community.
EDUCATION (SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN) SUMMARY
Participants at the Community Conversation in South Omaha ranked education as the top priority for community
partnerships. Similarly, participants at the North Omaha Community Conversation ranked education as their
second-highest priority. However, improving education was not considered a high priority in Community
Conversations occurring in West Omaha and Council Bluffs. These differential findings represent a common
theme in the perceptions about education within the tri-county area. Specifically, differences in perceptions
were found as a function of race, and location (e.g., county and location within Omaha).
Community Assessment
JOBS & OPPORTUNITY SUMMARY
A majority of the people surveyed (75%) said that jobs, wages, and cost of living were a major issue in their
community; but jobs and employment were of particular concern to low-income residents. Respondents with a
household income less than $35,000 were more likely than those with higher incomes to view the economy as
a problem, although even higher-income earners were concerned about economic issues. Community members
indicated strong interest in getting skill development, training and/or education to make them a better match to
the skills needed for available jobs in our community.
As was revealed in World Café discussions, working more and making more money may be a detriment to
workers if doing so means losing essential benefits. The “funding cliff” was discussed often as an issue for low
income families.
INTEGRATION & ANALYSIS
As part of the data collection and analysis of needs facing our community, we codified a set of persistent issues
that, when analyzed together, are both complicated and complex, especially when considered systemically.
Persistent issues are usually both complicated and complex. The sources of complicated issues, or problems,
can be identified and tackled individually (Poli, 2013). In contrast, complex problems result from systems of
several interrelating causes that cannot easily be isolated. To address a complex problem, a system must be
employed to address and – likely more realistically– influence the issues.
Though transportation challenges may be a symptom of other issues relating to poverty and economic hurdles, it
was identified as a consistent barrier to successfully addressing issues raised while examining other themes.
Educational attainment, skills and training were cited as barriers to jobs and can result in crime, unemployment
and underemployment.
Healthcare
Community members made clear that they have serious concerns with the access to and the cost of both
diagnostic and preventative healthcare. Furthermore, many in our community have issues with not having
adequate health and dental care coverage, and they struggle to address and understand the complexities of our
current system.
Education – Early Childhood
Early Childhood Education is important and valued in the community. In many neighborhoods however, there
are issues with the availability of and/or qualifications for having children in high quality centers. Costs and the
time needed to be associated with high-quality options were reported as barriers for parents to get their children
and families involved; but the data also showed that parents are sometimes not aware that newborns can benefit
from enriching environments, even when children are 18- and 24- months old.
Safety
It is not surprising that safety is a concern for almost all community members, especially those living in
certain areas of town, and those confronted with multiple challenges (e.g., being underemployed, having less
education). Young adult crime was cited as the most-personally experienced by those participating in surveys
and focus groups. Some respondents also reminded us that crime can have lasting effects; community members
with previous involvement in crime find that the bad choices have a lifelong impact on their employment
options.
Education – School-Aged Children
Education was referenced as a potential solution to a number of issues examined in the Community Assessment.
Although it may not be adversely influencing every household, most participants in the World Café concluded
that issues with education are a community-wide concern. Experiences with children’s education and access for
educational supports (e.g., mentoring, high quality after-school or extended learning opportunities) differ greatly
based on community members’ ethnicity and race.
Community Assessment
Jobs & Opportunity
There were multiple mentions of the words “jobs,” “opportunity” and “employment” throughout the
assessment. Many times, the lack of opportunities was highlighted; other times it was explained that jobs are
available, but the knowledge, skills, abilities and opportunities (KSAOs) were not present in many of those who
want to be hired. The mismatch of KSAOs and job experience with available opportunities in the community
were mentioned with respect to youth and education, as well as most adults who responded to the targeted
survey; unemployment subject matter experts concurred. Barriers to sustainable employment were often related
to transportation, lack of education, lack of work experience, inadequate childcare options, and no funding for
job skill development.
There is a great deal of passion, energy, and expertise available in each of the themes that were explored. Taking
into consideration the data collected, integrated and analyzed, the following rationale was utilized by UWM
staff to make recommendations for the priority areas, as well as to help guide the decision-making process and
discussion for the UWM Board of Directors.
The following considerations will be important as priorities are selected and strategies developed:
• The core objective of success must be to solve a problem rather than simply expand a successful program
• The focus must be on a well-defined unit of impact
• The approach to funding and investment must include: investment in new capabilities, fund training for staff/
agency personnel, hire new people, adopt new systems (i.e., technology, strong financial systems, innovation
to drive down costs), remaining open to capitalization and recruiting and engaging co-investors
• Long-term investments must be considered, since grantees need consistent, multi-year support in order to
build strong leadership, effective operations, community partnerships necessary to scale impact
• We must partner across sectors: government, non-profits and business, and continue to engage the
community; knowledge of local circumstances and local players will be critical to helping a solution spread
and stick
• There must be a focus on driving demand – can’t just have a “build it and they will come” attitude; unlocking
demand can be a game-changer
While UWM enjoys relationships with a diverse set of stakeholders, communication with donors regarding this
work and UWM’s continued commitment to basic and core needs is imperative – starting with the CEOs/decision
makers within an organization, down to the campaign managers inside the organization and finally, current
donors and potential donors.
The currently-funded agency audience has been consistently engaged throughout this assessment process
by providing: input for survey content, access to clients for various input during the assessment process, and
participation during community listening sessions.
UWM BOARD REVIEWS RESULTS & VOTES ON RECOMMENDATIONS
Members of the United Way of the Midlands Board of Directors reviewed the results of the year-long community
assessment and the recommendations of UWM management at a retreat in early March 2014.
Based on the findings of the needs assessment, along with discussion and exploration at its retreat, the board
voted on a motion to continue United Way of the Midlands’ historic 90-plus year commitment to providing
support for basic needs services that are critical to our community’s most vulnerable residents. In addition,
board members determined that United Way’s strengths and resources would be focused on breaking the cycle
of poverty by funding programs that support children during their academic years, and help prepare teens and
young adults for productive careers. Together, the two areas, CLASSROOM READY and WORKFORCE READY
will be known as “UNITED BY STRENGTH”.
Community Assessment
UWM STRATEGIC PLAN & MESSAGE MAP SUMMARIES
Community Assessment
As part of the United Way of the Midlands Strategic Planning process, input from multiple stakeholders
including board members, agencies and funders was gathered in 2011. Below are the highlights of the findings
as well as information gathered through Message Map focus group sessions held in November 2013.
2011 UWM Board Members
The United Way Board of Directors, then comprised of 48 members, was surveyed in late 2011 to capture
opinions on UWM current priorities, how UWM’s priorities should evolve over the next three to five years and
UWM’s current strengths and weaknesses. Key points gathered from the survey:
• Perception that UWM’s greatest asset is its broad perspective on the community; however, strong consensus
emerged on a need to focus on addressing a narrowed set of community needs and most effective
agencies
• Board members voiced that UWM should leverage its unique position to provide leadership and to
collaborate with other community funders
• There are fears that UWM might be losing donors and foundation funding because of a lack of clear focus
and articulated impact; UWM will need to communicate its impact and value proposition
• Many see opportunities to expand to a younger and more diverse set of donors, connecting with donors
outside of the annual corporate campaigns (non-corporate employees, small businesses, volunteer
opportunities, etc.)
• Most respondents mentioned need for change, and welcome it
“
“
members valued UWM’s broad community perspective:
2011
011 Board membe
“The power of a centralized amount of dollars
raised
ed is huge
h
aand large enough to move the
needle
community.”
dle in a com
“UWM has a broad
reach and perspective and
br
unrealized opportunity to lead cross agency/
funding resources to make a difference.”
“UWM provides a comprehensive view of issues
that need to be addressed. We have a reputation
as the funder of social services in the region
despite the relatively small percentage of overall
social service funding we provide.”
“UWM has an ability to bring together agencies,
donors, et al. to tackle community problems.”
“UWM can collect donations for areas not
normally thought of.”
“UWM can be the key organizer in addressing key
community issues.”
“UWM is able to focus the corporate
te commun
community
toward solving community needs.”
Board members aligned on need for UWM to focus within community needs:
However,
owever, 2011 Boa
“UWM
narrow
its focus on a select number
M should
sho
n
of goals,
which will improve its impact and image
oals, w
within the community.”
com
co
“Continue to focus more on the root causes of
needs within the community—mentoring and
education.”
“Target
to address the most critical
et dollars
doll
community needs.”
“Get involved in solving key community issues.”
“Use funds strategically to address the most
important issues.”
“UWM needs to get better at identifying critical
community needs and focusing there.”
“Identify those issues that are the most timely
and appropriate.”
“Funding a large pool of projects is
unsustainable.”
“There are more needs than funds which means
focus and prioritizing are critical.”
“Develop a strategic plan that narrows
ows
ws the foc
focus
of support in the context of other philanthropic
nthropi
and governmental agendas.”
Community Assessment
Prioritizing needs, leading collaboration, and expanding its donor base will help UWM meet changing trends
in philanthropy
“What are the biggest trends that you see in
the local philanthropy landscape?”
“Which of these trends do you see as the
biggest opportunities/threats for UWM?”
• Greater desire for focused giving and
communication around impact; donors are
specifically interested in education, long-term
chronic issues, local needs
• UWM should narrow its focus on community
needs, specifically seeking to address root
causes
• Need for collaboration
• Technology increasingly used as a tool for
fundraising and ongoing communication with
donors, especially younger donors and people
outside of employee campaigns
• UWM has an opportunity to convene other
funders and lead collaboration around critical
needs
• UWM should identify new givers and connect
with them early; UWM has an opportunity to
educate young people on community needs
• Increasing competition for funds
- Private foundations and older donors
have their own funding focus areas
- Large pool of agencies seeking funds results
in a zero-sum game
Donors
As part of the strategic planning process, several donor interviews were conducted in 2011. Below is a summary
of the common themes identified through these interviews, as well as some important variations.
Common Themes – Value of UWM to Donors
• Breadth of Scope and Perspective – a gift to UWM is a gift to the whole community
• Good Steward of the Donor’s Contribution – UWM is a trusted organization that ensures funds get to the
critical needs and effective agencies (although most expressed a need to make sure this is tested and
ensured for the future)
• Supports Critical Basic Needs and Safety Net – this demographic would be underserved if not for UWM
• Convenient and Effective Way of Supporting the Community – both for individuals and corporations seeking
ways to serve the community and engage employees
• Potential to occupy a Unique Position in the Community – by virtue of its breadth and diverse set of
relationships, UWM has unique opportunities to bring the community together
Variations identified
• Many donors discussed the fundraising and funding aggregation value of UWM, but very few thought this,
itself, as a sufficient value proposition for the future
• While most donors thought it was important for UWM to maintain safety net support, many proposed that
UWM also take a much more proactive a role on few key issues
• While nearly every donor mentioned the need for UWM to step-up and take more leadership, they differed in
how this might be done and who is to define leadership
Community Assessment
Strengths
• The campaign cited as a very effective way to
raise money
• UWM seen as one of the top organizations to give
money to
• Corporate relationships seen as strong especially
with large companies, that have been
maintained and nurtured
Weaknesses
• Few see strong growth potential within existing
campaign
• Donors seem to get “lost” once they change
companies, leave the workforce, move
Opportunities
• Some feel that there is more money available in
the community for the right causes
• Growth potential is seen with underrepresented
donor segments (women, minorities, young
leaders)
Threats
• Both individual donors and corporations are
looking for more direct involvement (designations,
corporate social responsibility) and value-add
• Some cite wealth transfer to the next generation
as a big challenge as money could leave the area
Agencies
Selected themes from sessions held with partner agencies regarding UWM strengths and best role:
• Fundraising, corporate relationships are clear strengths and value from UWM
• UWM supports basic needs and safety net – most felt this was very important to maintain
• UWM can support things that are difficult to fund in other ways – capacity building and unrestricted funding
can provide some security
• Differing views on role/value of initiatives – as well as UWM ability to do them well
• Some perceive UWM as well-positioned to play a leadership role of facilitating collaboration and
coordination. This should be done in partnership with agencies and others
Selected themes from agency sessions about UWM challenges:
• UWM is a fundraising “force” but becoming less important/smaller part of agency budgets
• Generally did not see UWM as having a clear vision/direction for the future, but hopeful
• Sensitivity to UWM moving into “direct service” – for example the operational role in 2-1-1
• Some referred to UWM as not listening well and encouraged UWM to be in a role of listening to the
community (those in need, those servicing needs, other funding needs) and not just donors
• Several held the view that UWM had not been successful in taking leadership roles on community issues
and needs to find the right approach to build capabilities to do this well
Community Assessment
Message Map, Focus Groups
In November 2013, Bailey Lauerman on behalf of United Way of the Midlands, conducted several Message
Map Focus Groups. These discussions provided significant insight into how the organization is perceived in the
community and the level of engagement with key constituents. Consistent with findings from the strategic planning
process, the results show that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about United Way of the Midlands. While
stakeholders acknowledged that United Way plays an important role in serving the most vulnerable members of
our community, the lack of proactive communication in previous years, coupled with fragmented and disparate
messaging has led to significant confusion about what UWM stands for and its mission.
Stakeholders who participated in these sessions included major donors, CEOs, private foundations, board
members, individual donors, corporate foundations, agencies and corporate campaign managers. The following
is a summary of the findings from the moderated sessions:
1. There is not a uniform, widely shared
understanding of UWM vision and core values.
2. Dimensions of the unique value delivered by
UWM in the community are not clearly
understood.
3. The high level of accountability required of
agencies is a key UWM strength.
4. There is widespread concern regarding
participation by the millennial workforce and
its impact on UWM.
5. Change undertaken by UWM must be
communicated in a clear, straightforward and
easy-to-understand manner.
6. When components of change are considered as
individual initiatives, there is concern that
UWM can do everything.
For United Way of the Midlands to maintain and increase both donor engagement and public
understanding, it will be important to have a finite number of priorities, versus funding a broad
spectrum of programs with minimal impact. The established priorities must be specific, clear and
measurable.
Messaging Considerations
To identify and prioritize messages that are most effective in achieving understanding, advocacy and support,
several messaging considerations will be taken into account.
1. The work of UWM is the work of the
community. The change we envision is about
making this a better place.
2. The annual campaign is more than a
fundraising event, it is a time when the
community is called together and people are
encouraged to give in their workplace, a place
that is difficult for nonprofits to reach.
3. Serving the needs of the community is
complex. It requires commitment, hard work,
organization and expertise.
6. People want to know and understand how
money and effort produce results.
7. UWM provides oversight and innovative
thinking to ensure that donor dollars and
resource investment are awarded to the
greatest areas of impact.
8. If they think about it, stakeholders recognize
how the community would suffer in the
absence of UWM.
4. UWM provides rewarding opportunities for
leadership and service.
9. The millennial point of view isn’t the only
signal of change in the donor community. It
will be important to understand donor
motivation for all segments.
5. In a time of change, UWM needs to
collaborate, build relationships and
partnerships, and engage with individuals at
a personal level.
10. In addition to messaging in support of
change, there are other critical
communications relative to the ongoing work
of UWM.
Community Assessment
STUDY METHODOLOGY
Community Assessment
In 2012 when the Strategic Planning Committee was formed, interview findings and data collected on
community needs, donor and philanthropic trends, and stakeholder perceptions of UWM challenges and
opportunities was reviewed. It was determined that a clear case for change was needed to dramatically enhance
UWM’s potential for positive impact on the community. At that time, data showed a growing population with
increasing basic needs, together with entrenched cycles of poverty in some communities. An aspiration to
understand the community’s needs was voiced based on “rich data and information - our own and our partners.”
The vision was articulated to help those who are most vulnerable, and to recognize that and address root cause
issues. There was a clear desire to see UWM commit to aggressively address a few select root cause issues in
the community.
A thorough community assessment was undertaken in 2013 in order to have a strong understanding of
community needs and gaps, providing context for choosing specific priorities and clear areas where UWM can
have the greatest impact. This section details how the assessment was undertaken: participant selection, data
collection tools, types of data collected, and the reliability and validity of the information.
United Way of the Midlands, Iowa West Foundation (IWF), Omaha Community Foundation (OCF), along with the
support of ConAgra Foods Foundation, conducted comprehensive community assessment in Douglas, Sarpy and
Pottawattamie counties. The purpose of the assessment was to understand and prioritize the community’s needs
and strengths. The next page is an infographic depicting the seven types of data-gathering and participant
sources:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Previous Community Research Efforts
Community Needs Survey
Community Conversations
Targeted Survey
Focus Groups
World Cafés
Inventory of Programs
In total, nearly 4,700 community members participated in the efforts. Following the infographic is a table that
further breaks down the data collection method, number of participants, number of sessions, timing, and if the
data was quantitative, qualitative, or both. Next, greater detail from each of the studies is provided, including
demographics such as ethnicity, income, etc.; how participants were recruited; education levels, and data
collection method.
Finally, the themes that were evident across the studies are described and discussed.
Community Assessment
United Way of the Midlands, Iowa West Foundation, Omaha Community Foundation,
with the support of ConAgra Foods, conducted a comprehensive community
assessment in Douglas, Sarpy and Pottawattamie counties.
The purpose of the community assessment was to understand and prioritize the community's needs and strengths. This was accomplished by
obtaining feedback from the community regarding the possible solutions to the needs identified and to build upon the community’s strengths.
01
03
05
07
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY
RESEARCH EFFORTS
Findings from over 50 previous
studies were leveraged to
identify key learnings and to
assist with development of the
study methodology.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
SURVEY
Two surveys were available: A
mailed survey that included a
representative sample of our
community, and a web survey
open to all adults.
COMMUNITY
CONVERSATIONS
Four community conversations
used audience polling
technology, to hear more
in-depth feedback from a wide
cross-section of residents.
FOCUS GROUPS
13 focus groups were held
exploring themes identified in
the community needs survey.
Participants were recruited
who met a specific set of
criteria, ensuring they
represented a subset of a
vulnerable population.
INVENTORY OF PROGRAMS
An inventory of provider services
and existing community funding
was developed to understand
the current landscape and “gaps”
in programming and funding.
TARGETED SURVEY
This survey of participants
with household incomes
below $35,000 provided a
deeper understanding of the
themes identified in the
broader community survey.
WORLD CAFÉS
Four World Café-style facilitated
meetings were held with service
providers, community leaders,
policy makers and other stakeholders. During these sessions,
the list of possible solutions to
the prioritized needs, identified
through the Community Needs
Survey, were refined and the
group explored opportunities for
community partnerships and
collaboration to more efficiently
and effectively develop solutions.
02
04
06
RESULTS
The findings from the community assessment are being utilized to determine priority areas. Task force teams, comprised
of subject-matter experts, will be convened to develop strategies and establish bold goals to monitor progress.
Data collected through the community assessment will be shared with stakeholders and the public through community
gatherings, meetings and on United Way’s website at www.UnitedWayMidlands.org
DATA COLLECTION METHOD
# OF
PARTICIPANTS
# OF
SESSIONS
TIMING
(E.G. DATE RANGE)
QUANTITATIVE,
QUALITATIVE, OR BOTH
Community Needs Survey
2,926
N/A
May-June 2013
Both
Community Conversation North
149
1
June 19, 2013
Both
Community Conversation South
99
1
June 20, 2013
Both
Community Conversation West
87
1
June 10, 2013
Both
Community Conversation Council Bluffs
38
1
June 11, 2013
Both
Community Conversations Total
373
4
June 10-20, 2013
Both
Targeted Survey
995
N/A
Jan. 15-Feb. 25, 2014
Both
World Café Economy
61
1
Feb. 14, 2014
Qualitative
World Café Education
54
1
Feb. 12, 2014
Qualitative
World Café Healthcare
62
1
Feb. 11, 2014
Qualitative
World Café Safety
50
1
Feb. 7, 2014
Qualitative
World Cafés total (with duplicates)
227
4
Feb. 7-14, 2014
Qualitative
Focus Groups
151
13
Jan. 19-Feb. 3, 2014
Qualitative
TOTAL
4,672
29
Community Assessment
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY RESEARCH
To begin the project, Omaha Community Foundation, UWM and Wilder Research gathered studies and data from
organizations across the community. These secondary sources were used to develop the structure and stimulus
material used in the community assessment and to provide more context and triangulation for the findings.
Secondary data was analyzed to identify the greatest needs, strengths, issues, and opportunities in the three
counties, highlighting important trends in the data along the way. Please see Appendix A – Sources Cited for the
full listing of the data sources.
Community Assessment
COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY
To gather feedback from residents in regards to the most critical needs in the metro area, a community needs
survey was fielded in the summer of 2013. Using a multi-method collection approach, this study included a
mailed survey of a representative sample of nearly 900 adult residents in Douglas, Sarpy and Pottawattamie
counties and a web survey of 1,800 community members who opted to participate based on advertising done in
the community. The survey was available in both English and Spanish.
Participation Recruitment
UWM, Iowa West Foundation (IWF) and Omaha Community Foundation (OCF) worked together to promote the
opportunity via social media, donor lists, internal mailings, word-of-mouth and other communication channels.
UWM also worked with its funded agencies to increase survey participation. A website was also developed
specifically to access the survey.
Participants who completed the survey were entered for a drawing of five $100 gift cards.
Participant Demographics
As discussed at the December board meeting, there was concern that respondents for the survey may
not accurately reflect the demographics of the population UWM serves and therefore, the study may not
accurately identify the topics facing the most vulnerable members of our community. Specifically, there were
two significant concerns with the research structure including: sample size and a representative stakeholder
participation in the study (people who likely have the need for the services).
As shared in the January board meeting, the UWM team has further analyzed the demographic statistics
collected from the first survey relative to census statistics and found that the sample does closely reflect the
desired demographic profile. Below, please find a sample of demographics compared with Douglas County
census statistics:
White or Caucasian
Hispanic, Latino or Spanish
ALL Phase 1 Survey
(online and mailed)
% of Respondents
Black or African American
*Mailed Phase 1 Survey
% of Respondents
2012 Census Data
% of Population
Households with income
$35,000-$49,999
Douglas County
Households with income
$34,999 and less
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
*Surveys were mailed to households with the desired demographic profile.
Community Assessment
Additional respondent demographics:
Education Level:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Not completed high school
50%
60%
High school diploma or GED
70%
80%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
Additional education past high school
Household Income:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Under $15,000
60%
$15,000-$24,999
70%
$25,000-$34,999
Children living in household:
0%
10%
20%
30%
No children living in home
40%
50%
1-3 children living in home
60%
70%
4 or more children living in home
* The responses reflect the demographic makeup of the entire community, which was the intent of the survey.
Survey Format
A 38-item survey was mailed to a representative sample of residents that live in Douglas, Sarpy and
Pottawattamie counties. The mailed survey data was sampled and weighted to be statistically representative.
This means the rates of reported problems in the respondents’ households are indicative of the actual issues
occurring across households in their respective counties. The survey was mailed first, with a reminder postcard
mailed later to encourage participation.
The same instrument used for the mailed survey was also made available online for any interested community
member to complete.
The surveys were coded and analyzed by Wilder Research Group and verified by Dr. Anne Herman.
Community Assessment
COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS
In the summer of 2013, four Community Conversations were held in different locations throughout the region
UWM serves, including The Jewish Federation of Omaha in West Omaha, the Lakin Campus in Council Bluffs,
Omaha North High School in North Omaha, and the Kroc Center in South Omaha. The goal was to gather
feedback from residents and determine the greatest needs by neighborhood.
Participation Recruitment
UWM, IWF and OCF collaborated to promote the opportunity via social media, donor lists, internal mailings,
word-of-mouth and other communication channels. Personal invitations were mailed to individuals that resided
within each neighborhood. UWM also worked with its funded agencies to promote the conversations.
Participants were provided a meal and childcare. UWM also provided transportation to anyone interested in
participating and not able to attend due to transportation accessibility. Additionally, participants were provided a
$10 Baker’s gift card for attending. 373 community members took part.
Participant Demographics
How far away do you live from this site?
Jewish Community Center
Omaha, NE – June 10, 2013
Less than 1 mile
Lakin Campus, Council
Bluffs, IA – June 11, 2013
1-2 miles
3-5 miles
North Omaha High School
Omaha, NE – June 19, 2013
6-10 miles
More than 10 miles
Kroc Center, Omaha, NE –
June 20, 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
How many children (age 17 or younger) live in your household?
Jewish Community Center
Omaha, NE – June 10, 2013
0 Children
Lakin Campus, Council
Bluffs, IA – June 11, 2013
1 Child
2-3 Children
North Omaha High School
Omaha, NE – June 19, 2013
4-5 Children
6 or more Children
Kroc Center, Omaha, NE –
June 20, 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Community Assessment
What is your age?
Jewish Community Center
Omaha, NE – June 10, 2013
18-24
25-34
Lakin Campus, Council
Bluffs, IA – June 11, 2013
35-44
45-54
North Omaha High School
Omaha, NE – June 19, 2013
55-64
65-74
Kroc Center, Omaha, NE –
June 20, 2013
75+
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Community Conversation Format
Participants were welcomed by UWM staff, and facilitators from Wilder Research led the conversation.
Participants sat at round tables with 8 to 10 individuals. Residents who participated in Community
Conversations completed the same paper survey that was used for the representative mailed survey. Participants
also voted on various questions using Audience Polling Technology (APT) and provided their feedback through
small group and large group discussions. Next, participants brainstormed answers to specific questions fielded
by the moderators such as “why do you like your community?” or “what problems are you facing within your
community?” After discussion at each table, a spokesperson was assigned to report the comments from each
table to the entire group. A final APT rating of the biggest needs in the community was taken.
The data was coded by Wilder Research and analyzed for the final findings report.
Community Assessment
TARGETED SURVEY
To gather feedback from community residents who face some of life’s biggest challenges, a second targeted
survey was fielded in January 2014. Participants were invited to complete a 43-item survey in exchange for a
$10 gift card if they met the following criteria:
• Household annual income below $35,000 and/or
• Qualifies for government assistance (such as food stamps, Social Security, Medicaid, or public housing)
The survey was available in both English and Spanish.
Participant Recruitment
UWM worked with its 31 funded agencies and an additional 40 agencies throughout the community to recruit
participants. Additionally, we connected to participants through social media, at community forums and
meetings, through the contacts of the UWM staff and board, and through 2-1-1 information and referral calls.
Participants received a $10 gas or grocery gift card in exchange for completing the survey.
The survey was available online and in paper in both English and Spanish. The surveys were made available
onsite at the community non-profit agencies, at community meetings, at the focus group meetings, and
available through the postal mail for those who were interested.
Participant Demographics
1,214 people completed the survey. 219 participants were removed from the analyses because they had
indicated they had a higher household income than $35,000 or had declined to answer that item; this process
created a sample size of 995. Most of the respondents were female (76.6%), with 23.3% males and one
individual indicating “other gender”.
Participants’ Income:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Under $15,000
50%
60%
$15,000-$24,999
70%
80%
90%
100%
$25,000-$34,999
Community Assessment
Participants’ races and ethnicities:
0%
10%
20%
30%
African American or Black
40%
50%
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White or Caucasian
60%
70%
80%
Asian American or Asian
90%
100%
Hispanic or Latino
Other
Participants had a variety of educational backgrounds whereas 32.4% had less than a GED or high school
diploma, 23.2% had a GED or high school diploma, 26.9% had some college but no degree, 9.5% had a
vocational and/or technical degree, 5.5% had a college diploma, and 2.4% had some graduate school or
more.
Participants indicated that the average number of people in the home was approximately three (m=3.2,
s.d.=1.95), with the most number of people in a home being two.
Most participants spoke English (79.5%) or Spanish (16.9%), with the remainder indicating a different
language was spoken in the home.
Marital Status:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Divorced
Living with Partner (not married)
50%
Married
60%
70%
Never married
80%
Separated
90%
100%
Widowed
Area of Town Lived in:
0%
10%
20%
30%
Council Bluffs
40%
North Omaha
50%
South Omaha
60%
West Omaha
70%
80%
90%
100%
Other
Survey Format
A 43-item survey was provided online, hand-distributed, or mailed to individuals who met the participant
criteria. Respondents either completed the survey immediately and received the $10 gift card incentive or
completed and returned the survey via pre-paid envelope, in which the gift card was mailed upon receipt.
The distribution came through the 31 funded agencies, 40 additional not-for-profit agencies, at community
forums and meetings, through the contacts of the UWM staff and board, and through 2-1-1 information and
referral calls.
The surveys were coded and analyzed by Dr. Anne Herman, Will Meinen, and Scott Schmidtbonne. See
Appendix B – Biographies.
Community Assessment
FOCUS GROUPS
To gather first-person accounts and experiences from community residents who face some of life’s biggest
challenges, 13 separate focus groups were hosted. Each focus group had a specific set of criteria to ensure
participants were a subset of a vulnerable population. 12 focus groups were conducted in English, with one
focus group in Spanish. Focus group themes and criteria included:
Basic Needs – Making Ends Meet, Access to Food,
Utility Payment Assistance, Housing Assistance
Participant criteria:
• Has household income of $35,000 or less, with at
least 1 adult and 1 dependent in the household; OR
• Receives government support, such as ADC, SNAP,
WIC, Social Security, Disability etc.; OR
• Resides in public, subsidized, or Section 8 housing,
or is homeless; OR
• Unemployed or underemployed
Economy and Jobs, Making a Livable Wage
Participant criteria:
• Has household income of $35,000 or less, with at
least 1 adult and 1 dependent in the household; OR
• Receives government support, such as WIC, ADC,
SNAP, Social Security, Disability etc.; OR
• Currently unemployed or underemployed
Education – Early Childhood
Participant criteria:
• Pregnant or parenting children ages 0-5; OR
• Receives government assistance, such as Title XX,
WIC; OR
• Child(ren) involved in Early Headstart, Headstart,
or Educare
Healthcare – Access to Healthcare, Mental Health
Services
Participant criteria:
• Uninsured or underinsured, OR
• Delayed seeking physical/mental/dental health
treatment for self or family; OR
• Doesn’t have a primary or regular care physician; OR
• Receives or is eligible for Medicaid
Safety, Crime, Violence, Gangs
Participant criteria:
• Has been affected by violent crime; OR
• Has been involved in, or has a family member who
has been involved in violent crime; OR
• Fears for their own and/or their family’s safety; OR
• Has concerns about community/neighborhood
safety
Transportation
Participant criteria:
• Does not have access to a reliable vehicle; OR
• Uses public transportation; OR
• Older than 16 but does not have current driver’s
license
Education – Out of School Time, Supporting Kids’
Graduation
Participant criteria:
• Parenting children ages 6-18; OR
• Has/had children who are/were at threat of being
behind in credit attainment in 8th or 9th grade; OR
• Has/had children who are/were at a 2.5 GPA or
below
Community Assessment
Participation Recruitment
To recruit participation from the target audience, UWM solicited participation from clients of our 31 funded
agencies and an additional 40 not-for-profits throughout the community, as well as callers through our 2-1-1
information and referral service. Communication about the opportunity to participate and criteria was distributed
through social media and the website. Additionally, UWM incented participation by providing a $10 gas or
grocery gift card for attendees.
To help address barriers to participate, UWM offered childcare services and meals at each focus group, and
transportation if required.
Participant Demographics
Individuals who participated in the focus groups met the desired criteria. Summarizing the 13 focus groups:
Participants’ Races and Ethnicities:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
African American or Black
Hispanic
50%
60%
70%
Whited or Caucasian
80%
90%
100%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
American Indian and Asian
Education Level:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Not completed high school
50%
60%
High school diploma or GED
70%
80%
Additional education past high school
Members Living in Household:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
1 person living in home
50%
60%
2-5 people living in home
70%
6 or more people living in home
Language:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
English speaking
50%
60%
Spanish speaking
70%
Did not reply
Job Status:
0%
10%
20%
30%
Unemployed
40%
50%
Hold full-time position
60%
70%
Hold one or more part-time positions
Community Assessment
Household Income:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Less than $35,000
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
More than $35,000
Focus Group Format
At the beginning of each session, participants were thanked and welcomed by UWM staff and the community
assessment process was explained. Each session was led by facilitator, Deb Burnight, who explored specific
issues related to the topic. Please see Appendix B – Biographies. A series of pre-approved questions developed
by UWM staff and evaluator Scott Schmidtbonne were used to discuss the issue and gather feedback.
One or two evaluators were also present for each discussion. They recorded and coded thoughts that were
shared. The results were then analyzed by Scott Schmidtbonne and his team, Dr. Michelle Simpson and Lindsey
Bandow.
Participants, who met the criteria for the Targeted Survey, were also invited to complete the 43-item survey and
to complete a demographic profile sheet.
Community Assessment
WORLD CAFÉ
To gather input and reactions to the identified areas of need, and the related issues gathered from the initial
phases of the community assessment, four World Café events were held. Participants included community
leaders, stakeholders, corporate leaders, donors, funders, CEOs of service providers, government representatives
and policy makers.
The event structure provided an opportunity for open and creative conversations on the themes to reveal
collective knowledge, share ideas and insights, and gain a deeper understanding of the subject and the issues
involved.
World Café topics included:
Safety
Healthcare
Education
Jobs & Opportunity
Participation Recruitment
UWM and the Omaha Community Foundation developed a list of content experts by theme and mailed personal
invitations. United Way staff followed up with personal phone calls and emails to assist with recruiting. The
invitees were also given the opportunity to invite other individuals who have knowledge or interest in the subject
matter.
Participants
A total of 200 individuals took part in the discussions, with 27 participating in more than one event.
• 144 service providers
• 21 corporate representatives
• 21 funders
• 10 labor federation
• 13 government (state and local) officials
• 18 others, including community volunteers
World Café Format
Each group was welcomed by UWM President and CEO Karen Bricklemyer, who provided an overview of the
community assessment process and thanked participants for sharing their time and knowledge. The lead
facilitator, Deb Burnight, discussed the process that would be used during the World Café. Dr. Anne Herman
presented top-line data collected from the initial survey and focus groups, and explained how the information
would be utilized to establish UWM priorities.
The World Café event began with five to eight participants seated at a round table with a UWM table host to
help led the discussion, and a UWM scribe to capture notes from the conversation. Three rounds of discussion
were held with participants moving to new tables between each round.
• Round 1: After introductions, each participant provided a one sentence reaction to the community feedback
presented. Then, the group worked to create a problem statement (who, what, when, where and how) on the
World Café subject. This session concluded with an assigned spokesperson from each table presenting their
group’s problem statement to the entire audience.
Community Assessment
• Round 2: The next discussion focused on key issues, root causes to the need, as well as missing information
the group identified that would assist in problem-solving. At the conclusion, an assigned spokesperson
presented the top three items from each group.
• Round 3: The final round of discussions focused on brainstorming the best possible “solutions” to the issue
being explored. The results were presented to the larger group.
Participants were sent a survey as a follow-up to attending. Data was coded and analyzed by Dr. Anne Herman,
Will Meinen, and Scott Schmidtbonne.
Community Assessment
INVENTORY OF PROGRAMS
UWM enlisted the assistance of Sarah Gilbert to create an inventory of provider services and existing community
funding to develop an understanding of the current landscape and “gaps” in funding and programming.
Ms. Gilbert began the process with data pulled from United Way of the Midlands’ 2-1-1 data base, which
included agency names, addresses, and labels for services provided. She cross-referenced this information with
searches using Guidestar and the Community Compass (hosted at Nonprofit Association of the Midlands, based
on data from National Center for Charitable Statistics at the Urban Institute). This step included deleting forprofit entities; adding nonprofits that provide services in these areas but were not in 2-1-1; and making updates
for name and address changes. She also conducted general internet searches in each area to find services/
programs that did not surface in the databases; research on agencies’ websites for program and site information;
and in a few cases, contacting agencies to confirm these details. The final step was categorizing the services
into the categories identified through the community assessment.
Please see pages 32 and 33 for graphic depictions of the non-profit programs currently available and the
programs UWM currently funds, respectively.
Note: This work does not represent a complete list of resources for the seven categories from the Community Needs survey.
Excluded are city/county/state/federal funded resources, as well as private resources.
Community Assessment
(OTHER: 141) TOTAL: 427
Medical
115
Treatment facilities
63
Counseling programs
92
Mental health
evalution services
18
Addiction, Mental
Health, etc.
116
Health and/or disabilityrelated support
42
Disease and/or disability
information
31
Alcohol and/or drug abuse
education, prevention,
and/or dependency support
40
(OTHER: 25) TOTAL: 123
Mentoring
programs
19
Day camps and/or
extended day care
28
K-12 Out-of-School
68
Parenting
skills and/or
expectant/new
parent assistance
23
(OTHER: 3) TOTAL: 33
Prevention
programs
15
Counseling
programs
15
Early Childhood
55
Support, Education
& Equipment
196
Early childhood
education centers
28
Safety
Education
Health
(OTHER: 29) TOTAL: 59
Vocational
rehabilitation
11
Pre-job guidance
10
Housing
102
Business assistance
centers
9
(OTHER: 134) TOTAL: 336
Transportation expense assistance
8
Transportation
25
Utility service payment
assistance
23
Help with Medical
& Utilities Expenses
33
Clothing
37
Clothing, Furniture,
Holiday Assistance
57
Food pantries, food co-ops, etc.
73
Food
119
Housing authorities, counseling,
search assistance programs
21
Transitional housing, shelters
18
Rent deposit, payment
assistance programs
22
Basic Needs
Jobs & Opportunity
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN
0%
Child Abuse
Prevention
Mental Health
10%
20%
30%
Crisis
Management
Arts
Preschool
Parenting
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
*American Cancer Society no longer affiliated
Access to Care
Child Care
Career Prep
After-school Academic Prep
Youth Fitness
Youth Development
Education – $4.4M
Emergency Preparedness
Youth
Heart Disease
Cancer*
Elderly
Access to Care
Family Support
Mental Health
Health – $3.2M
Emergency Prep
Family Support
Career Prep
Food
Homeless & Housing
Basic Needs
Emergency Relief
Income – $3.9M
TYPES OF PROGRAMS SUPPORTED BY UWM FUNDING 2012/13
Fitness
ESL
Financial Education
Legal Services
Disabled
TOTAL = $11.5M
THEMES
Community Assessment
How the Themes were Identified
To compile the feedback, the UWM team analyzed the previous community research efforts, results of the
community needs survey and summaries from the community conversations. Subject matter experts were
consulted to help categorize the feedback from this research into themes. The identified themes were then
utilized to develop the research models for the targeted survey, focus groups and World Cafés.
As shared at the January board meeting, there was consistency across demographic profiles regarding
perceptions of the areas of greatest need in our community. As the chart depicts, responses from households
with an annual income of $50,000 or less closely mirrored responses from the entire respondent group.
Community Assessment – Identified Needs
In your opinion, how much of a problem is each of the following in this community?*
RANKING
1
2
3
4
5
6
ALL RESPONSES
(sample size varies from 2587-2907)
Risky Behaviors (alcohol, drugs, driving under the
influence, STDs)
BELOW $50K RESPONSES
(sample size varies from 921-937)
Risky Behaviors (alcohol, drugs, driving under the
influence, STDs)
Safety (crime, child safety, gangs,
domestic violence, elder abuse)
Safety (crime, child safety, gangs,
domestic violence, elder abuse)
Health (physical and mental well being, obesity,
chronic disease)
Jobs & Opportunity (wages, cost of living)
Jobs & Opportunity (wages, cost of living)
Health (physical and mental well being, obesity,
chronic disease)
Basic Needs (access to healthy food,
shelter and clothing)
Basic Needs (access to healthy food,
shelter and clothing)
Youth Education (early childhood, school
participation, high school graduation)
Youth Education (early childhood, school
participation, high school graduation)
*Close-ended question
Community Assessment
Community Assessment – Identified Needs
What are your two or three biggest concerns for your neighborhood and community?*
RANKING
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ALL RESPONSES
(sample size varies from 2587-2907)
BELOW $50K RESPONSES
(sample size varies from 921-937)
Lack of safety
Lack of safety
Crime (general)
Lack of good jobs (e.g. jobs with livable wages)
Lack of good jobs (e.g. jobs with livable wages)
Crime (general)
Property upkeep issues/decreasing property value
(includes litter)
Property upkeep issues/decreasing property value
(includes litter)
Gang activity or youth violence
Gang activity or youth violence
Violence (general)
Drugs or controlled substances
(sale of, distribution of, use of)
Lack of/limited access to public transportation
Lack of/limited access to public transportation
Drugs or controlled substances
(sale of, distribution of, use of)
Education system (general)
Education system (general)
Violence (general)
Poor K-12 education (public education)
Transportation infrastructure
(roads, bridges, traffic)
*Open-ended question
After analyzing data from the community needs survey, youth education was divided into early education and
school-aged education because these two areas have specific issues that needed to be examined separately.
Issues relating to early childhood education would not be applicable to school-aged education and vice versa.
Therefore, the second phase of the examination explored seven themes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Transportation – Access to transportation, costs, mismatches to community needs
Healthcare – Access to healthcare, mental health services
Education – Early childhood
Safety – Crime, violence, gangs, drugs, domestic violence
Education – School-aged children
Jobs and Opportunity – Skills mismatch & development, available jobs, wages, adult training & education
Basic Needs – Making ends meet, access to food, utility payment assistance, housing
Community Assessment
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BY AREA
The next seven subsections provide details on the data and information collected from our community members
for each of the themes identified. Each section includes feedback gathered through the seven forms of data
collection utilized in the assessment and described in the study methodology section, beginning on page 15.
Community Assessment
BASIC NEEDS SUMMARY
People living in poverty in our community struggle to meet their basic needs. According to the 2008-2012
American Community Survey estimates, 93,000 of our fellow citizens and 16,000 families in Douglas, Sarpy,
and Pottawattamie counties live in poverty. To give you a sense of what poverty means, the U.S. Census Bureau
poverty threshold in “2011 dollars” for a family four was $22,811.
Living in poverty severely limits the ability of individuals and families to secure quality and affordable housing,
secure affordable insurance, medical care and food, and exposes them more often to violence in the forms of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse or neglect.
The United Way of the Midlands focus on basic needs was supported by the results of our targeted survey. A
targeted sample of community members making $35,000 a year and/or receiving benefits like food stamps were
asked to rank which of the following were a priority to the well-being of their family: basic needs, economy, early
education, education of school-aged children, health, safety, and transportation. Half of respondents (51%)
ranked basic needs as their highest priority concern for them and their family. Safety ranked second (18%).
Each of the basic needs explained above will be addressed in the remainder of this document.
Securing quality, affordable housing in a safe neighborhood gives
individuals and families a place from which to pursue their goals
of education and employment. The results of the community needs
survey showed that 28% of survey respondents have a problem
obtaining affordable housing.
Over half of the respondents to
the targeted survey ranked basic
needs as the most concerning
issue for their family.
Community members were asked in focus groups about the barriers
to securing affordable housing. Participants cited the following things: background checks, bad credit, up-front
costs, utility cost, and unavailability of a necessary-sized house. Even if they could find affordable opportunities,
there were challenges. Many focus group participants said affordable places are poorly-maintained and require a
great deal of repair to be livable.
In the targeted survey, participants were asked about their current place of residence. Half of the respondents
live in a rented apartment or home. A third of them live in what we classified as “unstable housing,” which
includes those who are homeless or staying in a shelter, motel, transition housing, or with family and friends.
The graph on the next page shows the remaining breakdown of the participants’ current living situation.
Community Assessment
Families living at or near the poverty
level struggle not only with finding and
paying for affordable and safe housing,
but paying the remainder of their
monthly expenses (i.e. rent, utilities,
food, clothing, transportation).
Renting Apartment/Home
Own Home
Staying with Friends/Family*
66.7% of respondents to the targeted
survey said they did not have enough
money to pay all of their bills. All
participants in the focus groups
repeated they do not make enough
money to live comfortably, and
struggled to secure a livable wage.
Public Housing/Section 8
Homeless/Staying in Shelter*
Other
Transitional Housing*
*Unstable Housing Options
Of those who said they did not have enough money to pay all their bills:
Said higher paying job opportunities would be helpful
Said government assistance would be helpful
Said a raise at their current job would be helpful
Said budgeting classes would be helpful
Other
Participants could select more than one answer.
Community members were asked to estimate the difference between how much money they had each month
and how much they actually needed for their family’s expenses. Responses ranged from $25 to $3,000. Of the
respondents who provided a dollar amount, the most common dollar amount given was $200. Just over half
(54%) said the difference was $400 or less.
Participants in the targeted survey were asked how they made up the difference between what they had and
what they needed. A third of people who had indicated they had issues making ends meet said they borrowed
money from family and friends to make up the difference. Those who responded ‘other’ provided a wide variety
of examples (e.g., going without things they needed, working odd jobs).
ASSISTANCE
Borrow from family or friends
Help from church or other organization
Other
Sell personal belongings
Payday loans and check advance
The results of the targeted survey were echoed in the focus groups. Many people in the focus groups spoke
about having to prioritize which bills to pay while allowing others to become delinquent, as well the need to go
to food pantries in order to meet the families’ nutrition needs.
Community Assessment
Via 2-1-1, United Way of the Midlands has long
provided referrals for assistance to residents in need
of help paying utilities. 49% of respondents to the
targeted survey said that they had received help to
help pay for utilities.
Participants were asked what problems they had
encountered in getting help to pay for utilities.
“It’s hard when you can barely make ends
meet and then your child needs a new
coat.”
- Focus Group Participant
Did not qualify for assistance
Could not find funding in the community
Assistance process was hard
Had no problem securing assistance
Takes too much time
*Respondents could mark more than on category
Another form of assistance that many of our vulnerable residents rely upon is federal or state benefits. 87% of
respondents we surveyed were aware of federal or state benefits like food stamps. Of those who were aware that
these programs exist, 59% receive benefits. Of those who know about programs but didn’t receive benefits (116
participants), nearly half said they did not qualify.
Food Insecurity
The results of the community-wide survey showed that:
• 34% of respondents said eating a healthy, nutritious diet was either a major or minor problem in their
household
• 85% of those surveyed said that it was either a major or minor problem for the community
• American Indian and Latino residents, and those with household incomes less than $75,000 a year, were
more likely to report problems with access to nutritious food
Guests at the four Community Conversations also were asked about access to healthy and affordable food. The
participants at the South and North Omaha locations reported the highest rate of challenge in area of healthy
and affordable food: nearly 92% at the South site said access was a minor or major problem, and 89% at the
north site said access was a challenge. 67% of the people who attended the West Omaha session reported that
access to healthy and affordable food was a minor or major problem. Just under half of those at the Council
Bluffs location reported such challenges.
When focus group members (whose household income is $35,000 and below) were asked about food, they
reported the following issues:
• There was a lack of money to buy fresh fruits and vegetables
• Fresh food goes bad quickly
• Unhealthy food is advertised, so kids want it
• The quality of school lunches is poor
• Childhood obesity and diabetes are concerns
Community-wide survey participants were asked how often they purchase food and other locally-produced goods
– either on a regular or occasional basis. The percentage of residents who said they had done so was relatively
high: 79% of Douglas County residents, 81% from Sarpy, and 88% from Pottawattamie County reported they
purchase food and other locally produced goods on a regular or occasional basis. 14% of respondents from the
three-county area said were aware of locally-produced options, but did not purchase them. 6% said they were
unaware of such options.
Community Assessment
A question in the targeted community survey focused on consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. When asked
how often they eat fresh fruit and vegetables, respondents to the target survey answered:
0%
10%
20%
A few times each week
Daily
30%
40%
A few times each month
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not at all
Almost two-thirds of respondents to the targeted survey (62.6%) advised that it was cost that kept them from
eating fruits and vegetables more regularly. Relatedly, focus group participants shared that they often paid more
for groceries in North Omaha, which exacerbated the challenge of paying for food. 17% of the targeted survey
respondents advised that the barrier was availability.
Respondents to the targeted survey provided the following information on their monthly expenses for food,
housing, utilities, clothing and transportation:
TARGETED SURVEYMONTHLY EXPENSES
FOR:
Less than $50
Housing
17.3%
Utilities
23.7%
Food
10.4%
Clothing
37.2%
Transportation
21.4%
$50-99
5.5%
12.8%
10.6%
26.7%
25.8%
$100-199
8.0%
26.9%
29.6%
24.0%
31.2%
$200-399
16.4%
26.9%
33.9%
9.4%
16.7%
$400 +
52.8%
9.7%
15.5%
2.8%
4.8%
Health and Safety
The results of the targeted survey showed that 38.5% delayed getting physical healthcare, 42.7% delayed
getting dental healthcare, and 19.7% delayed addressing mental health needs. Reasons for delaying are
displayed below for each of the types of healthcare needs.
If you did delay getting health care, what were the reasons?
REASON
Not covered by insurance
Care was too expensive even with insurance
Did not think it was serious enough
Had transportation problems
Didn't know where services were offered
Doctor's office hours didn't work with my schedule
Physical Health
I was too embarrassed
There wasn't a doctor's office close enough
Mental &
Behavioral Health
Dental Health
The top three “other” reasons cited for delaying care included: not having coverage, couldn’t afford care, and
had a bad experience.
Community Assessment
The majority of those who responded to the targeted survey were on Medicaid or had no insurance at all – with
these two options being the choice of almost 70% of respondents. Many accessed care through public health
services, or have recently signed up under the Affordable Care Act.
Respondents who had no insurance most commonly receive medical care at the emergency room. These
respondents also report the most difficult kinds of care to access were the dentist, and mental health specialists
such as a psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist.
Respondents shared that certain types of care were ‘difficult to access.’ Most frequently cited were those
medical professionals who focus on behavioral and mental health.
Dentist
Specialist Physician
Family Physician
School Counselor
Psychiatrist
Mental Health Therapist
Psychologist
Substance Abuse
Behavioral/mental health care providers
Over ¾ of all respondents to the targeted survey advised that the following were either a major or minor concern
for them:
Alcohol Use Among Young Adults
Drug Use Among Young Adults
Drug Use Among Adults
Alcohol Use Among Adults
Teen Pregnancy
Respondents were also asked to provide their thoughts on what could be contributing to each of the following
community problems:
COMMUNITY HEALTH ISSUE
Teen pregnancy
71.1
28.9
Drug use among young adults
70.3
29.7
Alcohol use among young adults
72.7
27.3
Drug use among adults
73.1
26.9
Alcohol use among adults
73.6
26.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Community is
unaware of programs
Prevention services
not available
100%
Community Assessment
When asked what else could be causing community problems, the following answers were coded as the top five,
from highest to lowest:
1
2
3
4
5
Poor parenting
Communication*
Gangs
Drug and alcohol abuse
Hopelessness and shame
*For example, lack of communication across community on
the magnitude and locations of crime and safety concerns,
misperceptions, focus on negative information only
Safety
Safety is a significant concern for the vulnerable members of our community. When we asked participants of the
targeted survey about their experience with crime, 17.7% of respondents said that they had been a victim of
crime in their neighborhood in the past 2 years. Of those who had been a victim, 59.0% said they were not able
to get the help they needed from authorities.
Violence in the home is also an unfortunate reality for members of our community. When asked about
experiences with domestic violence, 21.4% of respondents reported that they had been a victim of domestic
violence in the past 2 years. Of this group, 41.5% said they were not able to get the help they needed.
Gang activity, and the illegal activities that stem from it, are a growing concern in the city of Omaha. Of the
participants in the targeted survey, 42.4% of respondents said they had seen gang activity where they live, and
11.8% said they had been threatened by a gang member in the last 12 months.
Almost half (45.3%) of respondents reported that they had seen drug activity where they live.
Targeted Survey – Which of these are a serious issue in your neighborhood?
Young Adult Crime
Drug Sales
Vandalism & Property Crime
Violent Crime
Gang Activity
Property Upkeep
Domestic Violence
Vacant Property
Elder Abuse
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Community Assessment
Nearly 58% of those who responded to the targeted survey said crime committed by young adults is a serious
issue in their neighborhood. More than half said violent crime and gang activity were serious issues in their
neighborhood, with reports of domestic violence not far behind.
Focus group participants said parents are afraid to let kids play outside, out of fear they will be hurt or be
exposed to bad influences. Theft and robbery are concerns, with some saying they’re afraid to carry a purse
or wallet after dark. Some reported feeling a lack of control over neighborhood activities, and felt their
neighborhood has been “written off.” Participants said there’s a perception that violence occurs only in North
Omaha, and that media coverage supports that assumption.
Community Assessment
TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY
A vast majority (88%) of respondents across all three counties felt that reliable public transportation was
important to the quality of life in this community, but those making $49,999 or less were more likely to view
reliable public transportation as “important to quality of life” than more affluent respondents.
In a similar fashion, almost a third of respondents
(27%) see access to reliable and affordable
transportation as a problem for more than one of the
people in their home. Over two-thirds of respondents
(69%), however, advised that reliable and affordable
transportation was a problem for people in the
community. Respondents with lower income were more
likely to see transportation as an issue than those with
higher income.
Transportation for many in this community is a barrier
and a drain on resources. Almost a third of respondents
to the targeted survey stated that transportation
affected their options and ability to work, with almost
40% indicating that this limitation had been a
problem for more than a year. Multiple participants
in focus groups shared the experience of missing job
opportunities because of the transportation barriers.
NUMBER
PERCENT
Bicycle
40
4.0
Carpool
80
8.0
Bus
234
23.5
Car
664
66.7
Motorcycle
10
1.0
Another’s car
200
20.1
Walk
224
22.5
Respondents also shared that they had to devote time in
their week to the planning of how they will get to their
Other
22
2.2
destination and back, and waiting for transportation
options (e.g., buses and rides in others’ cars). Threefourths of them spend up to two hours a week just
TOTAL
1,474
100.0
planning their options and routes. Half said it takes
another 1 to 2 hours to get to the store or work, and
back again. Focus group participants reminded us that
*Respondents to the targeted survey were asked how they got
being reliant on our community’s bus system means that around town. Most indicated a multiple option approach.
participants are largely waiting outside with no protection
from elements, or places to sit. Additionally, participants advised that there is often little accommodation for
people with disabilities.
Respondents to the targeted survey and participants in the focus groups also shared the barriers they face in
securing reliable and safe transportation, with many respondents experiencing multiple barriers. The most
frequently cited barriers were being able to afford transit expenses, not having a reliable car, bus routes and
times that don’t match their schedules and/or destinations, and not having a driver’s license.
Up-front costs, monthly payments, high insurance,
maintenance, and the cost of gas keep people from
getting their own transportation. Furthermore,
outstanding fines and tickets also can prevent people
from owning their own transportation, because they
can’t afford to pay their past debts.
3 out of 4
Almost
respondents
with a household income of $15,000 or
less viewed transportation as an issue.
Community Assessment
Reliance on public transportation is challenging in our community. Participants in our focus group stated that
most who use public transportation do not work traditional hours, so the current bus system does not serve them
well. Furthermore, they advised that buses did not go to many parts of the community, West Omaha for example,
where for some needed medical care is found. Access to southern parts of the metro area and newly developed
areas is also lacking.
Furthermore, using the bus means having to adhere to limited bus schedules and locations; these restrictions
result in very limited opportunities to have children in after-school activities and programs, and the ability to do
shopping and get needed services.
Despite the fact that transportation was deemed a minor or major problem by at least 80% of the participants at
the four Community Conversations, they did not rate it as a “high priority area” for the community over the next
10 years.
In the area of Transportation, the assessment partners have identified 25 organizations that provide services for
residents of the three-county metropolitan area. These do not include public transportation, or private/for-profit
organizations.
Among the 25 providers, there were 28 programs identified.
TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OFFERED
OMAHA-COUNCIL BLUFFS METRO AREA
Transportation Expense Assistance
Senior Citizen Transportation
Transportation to Medical Appointments
Disability-related Transportation
Client Ride Services – O.D. Mission
Medical Association – MOMS
Transportation for Endangered Persons,
Douglas Co. Victim Witness Unit
Transportation Services - ENCAP
# OF
PROGRAMS
8
7
5
4
1
1
1
1
Community Assessment
HEALTH SUMMARY
Of the hundreds of local residents who responded to the community-wide survey, there appears to be a sizeable
perception gap in the way people view “health” at the community and personal levels.
That perception continued in several areas –
obesity, chronic disease, mental or dental health –
respondents said the problem was at least twice as
troublesome for the community as it was in their own
homes.
However, more than half of the people who came to
the community conversations in North, South and
West Omaha said access to health care was a problem.
82%
of the participants in the communitywide survey said getting health care was a
problem for those who live and work here.
Only 22% reported that it was an issue in their
own household.
More than 90% of South Omaha attendees said they had trouble accessing mental and dental care. More than
80% of the guests at the North Omaha conversation said much the same thing. Nearly 90% of Council Bluffs
participants reported the biggest issue was access to mental healthcare, while those at the Jewish Community
Center conversation in West Omaha mentioned health, dental and mental care at an average 62% among the
3 areas. In results of the targeted survey, 38.5% said they had delayed getting physical health care; their
responses as to why varied and are depicted below.
If you did delay getting physical health care, what were the reasons?
Not Covered by Insurance
Care was too expensive, even with insurance
Didn’t think it was serious enough
Had transportation problems
Another critical element to wellbeing – access to healthy and affordable food – was reported a problem by about
90% of the Community Conversation guests in both North and South Omaha. More than two-thirds of those at
the West Omaha meeting said the same thing, with less than half (48.4%) reporting this problem in Council
Bluffs.
The majority of those who responded to the targeted survey were on Medicaid or had no insurance at all – with
these two options being the choice of almost 70.5% of respondents. Many accessed care through public health
services, or have recently signed up under the Affordable Care Act.
Respondents who had no insurance most commonly receive medical care at the emergency room. These
respondents also report the most difficult kinds of care to access were the dentist, and mental health specialists
such as a psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist.
Community Assessment
Participants were asked to provide insight as to what could be contributing factors to certain community health
issues. According to those who responded to the targeted survey, the following issues could be contributing to
community health problems:
COMMUNITY HEALTH ISSUE
Sexually transmitted diseases among young adults
78.3
21.7
Teen pregnancy
71.1
28.9
Drug use among young adults
70.3
29.7
Alcohol use among young adults
72.7
27.3
Drug use among adults
73.1
26.9
Alcohol use among adults
73.6
26.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Community is
unaware of programs
Prevention services
not available
100%
Focus group participants identified one of the major strengths in our local community as our having “high
quality and caring medical professionals.” But the perceived weaknesses included that these same great doctors
are overloaded with patients, which reduces the time available to discuss their health concerns or conditions.
Focus group guests said the major barriers to good health fell into two categories:
1. Financial issues – these related to paying medical bills, not enough money to purchase fresh
fruits and vegetables, chronic illnesses, and transportation issues
2. Communication & Awareness – Lack of communication on, and the awareness of the many local
medical services. Interestingly, participants of the Health World Café also expressed a lack of
knowledge about programs available at local health care providers and other organizations.
Many of the 62 individuals who attended the healthcare World Café were service providers. A few health
insurance and health care providers were also in attendance. More than half of the participants felt that the
disadvantaged population is most affected by healthcare issues overall (e.g., low-income, unemployed, working
multiple jobs).
When the attendees were asked “What is the problem?” and probed with a follow-up question focused on
causes, the greatest number of comments to both focused on a lack of community knowledge on how to
navigate health care choices. This includes making informed decisions (e.g., proactive care vs. emergency
room), prioritizing care (e.g., transient illness vs. chronic conditions), and understanding one’s health care
coverage. Comments also suggested that access to care (20%) and the high cost of healthcare (20%), are the
“core essence” of the problem. Lack of preventative health care was also a concern, as well as the multiplying
effects of poverty.
More than 1 in 3 comments (35%) suggested that addressing consumer knowledge gaps and identifying best
practices in the health care arena would be beneficial. Others suggested solutions were in the areas of needing
coordination, expanding community education on health issues, information-sharing among all providers in
the space, and the need for a formal collaboration of the providers. For example, there was discussion on
establishing objective community health care navigators to look at the entire scope of local health care. A
number of participants highlighted the need to “meet people where they are” – in their neighborhoods, at their
experience level, etc. Other ideas included educating city planners on healthcare and local needs, providing
guidance to employers on educating their own employees, and encouraging service providers to meet on a
quarterly basis to consolidate information and give scenarios to better serve our community.
Community Assessment
Environmental Scan
The environmental scan of the health-related services indicated that there are 196 organizations providing
support, education and equipment; 116 organizations addressing mental health issues; 115 other medical
entities.
# OF PROGRAM
HEALTH PROGRAMS
TYPES
Provide support, education & equipment
196
Address mental health issues
116
Other medical entities
115
Community Assessment
EARLY EDUCATION SUMMARY
An overwhelming majority of Community Assessment survey respondents (85%) agreed that there are adequate
resources to prepare children for kindergarten in the three-county metro area.
Focus group participants also concurred saying the
early childhood options in our community include
of those who participated in the broader
high quality programs, with favorable personal
survey said “having enough money to pay for child
experiences reported. Many in the group specifically
care” is a problem in our metro area.
mentioned that programs like Educare and OPS
Headstart offer children good opportunities to
build the skills they need for a successful start in
kindergarten. Focus group participants also expressed appreciation that many of the programs offered additional
benefits to participating families, such as free health screenings.
80%
The cost of child care did surface as a significant concern in the general community-wide survey. Some of the
focus group participants, though, said they qualified for government assistance to help cover their child care
expenses.
Members of the focus group also reported that their own work schedules and other conflicts often make it
difficult to attend registration and orientation programs at the pre-kindergarten child care sites.
Approximately 19% of those responding to the targeted survey said they had children attending pre-kindergarten
programs in the metro area. Of those who did not have youngsters in such programs, most reported their
children were either too old or young for them. But more than 100 respondents mentioned their lack of
awareness of high-quality and affordable early childhood programs in our community as the reason for not
having their kids involved.
Targeted Survey Results
On Waiting List
31
17
16
6
Other
120
Do not have children under age 5
446
Hours do not match to family schedule
Did not know of high-quality pre-K
options in the community
61
54
47
46
Child has medical needs not
allowed/addressed
Do not know of affordable pre-K
options in the community
Child too young
Costs too much
Do not want child in a program
In conversations with community leaders and concerned citizens at the World Café, “early intervention” was
mentioned as an important component of the overall education system – and that our community must be
concerned about learning that takes place outside of the K-12 school structure. In fact, participants said there
should be many interventions with pre-school children, to ensure school success.
Community Assessment
In the area of Early Childhood Education, the assessment partners have identified 55 organizations that provide
early childhood education programs across the three-county metropolitan area. These did not include private/forprofit organizations or governmental bodies.
Among the 55 providers, there were 77 programs identified. The types of services included were: early
childhood education, expectant and new parent assistance, parenting skills classes, home-based parenting
education, child care centers and extended day care.
EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS
Early Childhood Education Centers
Skill-building for Parents &
Expectant Parents
Child Care/Day Care/Extended
Care Centers
# OF PROGRAM
TYPES
28
23
26
PROGRAMS BY COUNTY
Douglas
Sarpy
Pottawattamie
# OF
PROGRAMS
55
7
15
(based on zip code of host organization)
Community Assessment
SAFETY SUMMARY
Nearly all (97%) of the respondents from the three-county metro area said a safe neighborhood is important for
their quality of life.
More than half (56%) list crime and safety as one of their biggest concerns. (This includes gangs, drugs, guns
and sexually-transmitted disease.)
Somewhat in contrast, 85% of those who participated in the metro-wide survey agreed that “this community is a
safe place to live.” Respondents who are African American, American Indian and those with a household income
at or below $49,999 were more likely than others to disagree.
3 out of 4
respondents from the metro area say Safety is a problem in their
community. Among the 3 counties, fewer residents from Sarpy County expressed this opinion
(58%). 97% of African American and Hispanic respondents reported that crime/safety was a
problem in their community.
Targeted Survey – Which of these are a serious issue in your neighborhood?
Young Adult Crime
Drug Sales
Vandalism & Property Crime
Violent Crime
Gang Activity
Property Upkeep
Domestic Violence
Vacant Property
Elder Abuse
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Nearly 58% of those who responded to the targeted survey said crime committed by young adults is a serious
issue in their neighborhood. More than half said violent crime and gang activity were serious issues in their
neighborhood, with reports of domestic violence not far behind.
24% reported feeling somewhat-to-extremely unsafe in their community. More than four in ten respondents
said they have seen drug (45%) and gang (42%) activity where they live. More than one in ten (12%) reported
being threatened by a gang member in the past year.
Focus group participants said parents are afraid to let kids play outside, out of fear they will be hurt or be
exposed to bad influences. Theft and robbery are concerns, with some saying they’re afraid to carry a purse
or wallet after dark. Some reported feeling a lack of control over neighborhood activities, and felt their
neighborhood has been “written off.” Participants said there’s a perception that violence occurs only in North
Omaha, and that media coverage supports that assumption.
Community Assessment
Among the suggested solutions, participants said police need
to be more visible in their community. That residents need
to watch out for each other, and churches could be more
involved. That more and better jobs would make a difference.
And, while there may be a number of human services
available, participants said it’s very hard for people
to learn about where they are and what they do. One
participant suggested a “one-stop shop” for such services.
Though participants reported their
environment is unsafe, they don’t want
to live in constant fear, and that people
trust most of their neighbors.
A small number of World Café (WC) members (8%) said crime “spills out” of isolated areas and has a
community-wide impact. There was also recognition that, while there are “violence hot spots,” the next block
over can have little or no crime.
The locations mentioned most frequently by World Café
2/3 of the participants in the Safety & Violence
participants were Northeast and Southeast Omaha, and
World Café said violent crime is isolated to
certain pockets in eastern Omaha. More than half of
the participants (nearly 64%) suggested that problems
certain parts of the Omaha metro area. 25%
of metro-area crime are associated with a lack of
said it happens in all areas of the community.
strong families, lack of engagement opportunities like
jobs for teens/adults, children’s activities and a lack
of support for disadvantaged areas from the community-at-large. 12.5% said media coverage plays a role in the
perception that crime occurs mostly in North and South Omaha.
What’s the Problem?
0%
10%
Lack of Strong Families
More Communication
20%
30%
40%
50%
Lack of Engagement Opportunities
Lack of Secure Environment
60%
Lack of Support
Crime
Media
Focus on Enforcement
70%
80%
Hopelessness
Gangs
90%
100%
Lack of Education
Lack of Role Models
Mental Health
When asked about the “Root Cause” of crime in Northeast, Southeast and parts of eastern Omaha, more
than one quarter of World Café participants (27.6%) attributed it to family strength, generational poverty and
violence. Lack of jobs, investment and education for children accounted for more than 23% of responses. The
psychological effects of poverty and crime ranked at more than 10%. As one participant put it: “There is a need
to provide hope, aspirations and consequences.”
Possible Solutions (Comment Percentage)
More than a third of those in attendance
Corporate Champion
(37.5%) said children are the ones
bearing the most significant impact
Education (Human Capital)
of crime in our community. More than
Criminal History
a quarter said that crime affects the
community as a whole.
Investment in Current Solutions
World Café participants said the use of
“data” is critical to addressing the issue
of Safety and Violence; more than 40%
say our community not only needs more
“local vs. national” data and what causes
crime, but it has to be thoughtful about
how to use that data in taking steps to
make our community safer.
Mentoring
More Data (Other Cities)
New Solutions
Youth Engagement Opportunities
Education (Crime Prevention/Avoidance
Community Solutions
Wages
Community Assessment
While nearly 18% agreed upon the need to dispel perceptions that crime’s impact is simply geographicallyisolated, more than 22% say community-driven solutions and better communication from law enforcement and
the news media could make a difference.
As for solutions, more than 1 in 5 World Café members agreed that it will take a “corporate champion” to
make an impact on local safety, including increased investment in the most affected neighborhoods. More than
20% said removing barriers to employment is the answer, which includes a focus on education at all levels
(academic, trades, etc.), and a new perspective on hiring people who have criminal histories.
In the areas of Safety, Crime and Violence, the assessment partners have identified 33 organizations that
provide services for victims and their families in the three-county metropolitan area. These do not generally
include private/for-profit organizations or governmental bodies.
Among the 33 providers, there were 66 programs identified. The types of services included are: violence in the
home or a relationship, sexual assault of an adult or child, gang prevention or counseling, and elder abuse.
There are also services listed for child advocacy and legal assistance on social service issues.
SAFETY, CRIME, VIOLENCE & GANGS
Counseling
Prevention
Hotlines
# OF PROGRAMS
TYPES
15
15
8
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMS
Domestic Violence/Relationship Violence
Sexual Assault (adult & child)
Gangs
Elder Abuse
PROGRAMS BY COUNTY
Douglas
Sarpy
Pottawattamie
# OF PROGRAMS
IDENTIFIED
37
23
5
1
# OF
PROGRAMS
43
7
16
(based on zip code of host organization)
Community Assessment
EDUCATION SUMMARY
Participants at the Community Conversations in South Omaha ranked education as the top priority for
community partnerships. Similarly, participants at a North Omaha Community Conversation ranked education
as their second-highest priority. However, improving education was not considered a high priority in Community
Conversations occurring in West Omaha and Council Bluffs. These differential findings represent a common
theme in the perceptions about education within the tri-county area. Specifically, differences in perceptions
were found when responses were examined by race, location and income levels.
When asked their level of concern for youth
education in their community, forty-seven percent
of Douglas County residents and fifty-one percent
of Pottawattamie County residents said that youth
education was a problem in their communities.
However, only twenty-four percent of respondents
from Sarpy County felt that youth education was a
problem in their community.
so many in the
community don’t see [Education]
as an issue is a problem.”
“The fact that
- Education World Café Participant
A majority of World Café comments suggest that, while some believe the entire community is impacted by
problems in education (31.82%), others say children who are disadvantaged are impacted the most (22.73%).
Differences in opinion were also identified as a function of family income. Specifically, when respondents to the
community-wide survey were asked to rate their agreement with the statement, “The children in the community
get a high quality education at school”, respondents with a household income at or below $25,000 disagreed at
twice the rate of those with household incomes of $150,000.
These differing opinions by county, due to location and income are likely related, as the Iowa Department of
Education has reported vastly different rates of participation in the Federal Lunch Program between those
experienced by Douglas and Pottawattamie Counties (46% and 49%, respectively) versus those of Sarpy County
(23%). Participation in the Federal Lunch Program requires that a family of four earns less than $43,568 in
gross annual income.
World Café participants noted that the difference in opinions across both the tri-county area and within Omaha
was a barrier for addressing problems with education.
While there is some disagreement about the magnitude of the problems in education in the tri-county area,
consensus did emerge that suggests that problems in education are associated with: 1) parental engagement
and support of parents in the parenting process; 2) the availability and access to resources; and 3) student
preparation for the jobs that are available in our community.
Focus group comments suggested that there is a need for proactive rather than punitive parenting classes.
Additionally, participants in a World Café on the topic of education felt that these classes should focus on
educating the parents of young children about how best to support their student’s academic growth. Further, it
was suggested that this critical lack of knowledge about available parental academic support keeps parents from
being more engaged in their students’ education. Other contributing factors have included how best to allow for
parental engagement and parental perceptions that they were being judged by staff.
To combat this issue, focus group participants suggested that teachers should be afforded greater opportunities
to get to know the families of their students.
Community Assessment
When asked in the Education World Café what
issues are causing problems in education, 4 in 10
comments (40%) suggested that a lack of cultural
sensitivity in education was contributing to and/or
exacerbating problems in education. Focus group
participants said these problems were due to a lack
of cultural sensitivity within classrooms, as well
as failing to hire culturally-similar teachers and
administrators to serve as role models.
“Parents know they’re being judged by teachers.
When there is a problem with a student’s
education it’s viewed as the parents’ fault.”
- Focus Group Participant
Perceptions of limited resources were evident in community surveys, and comments from focus group and World
Café discussions. For example, focus group comments suggested that many in disadvantaged communities are
aware of tutoring opportunities, but gaining access to mentoring programs is hard due to a lack of mentors.
Consistently, it was highlighted that there are issues associated with both the availability of programs, as well as
a lack of awareness of the programs that exist in the community. However, there were considerable differences
in perceptions (e.g., as a function of race).
Community Survey – Availability of Educational Resources as Viewed by African American and Non-African
American Respondents
Statement: There are resources available to:
Help children learn outside of school
Connect children with mentors
Percentage of
Non-African
Americans who
disagree
Help children stay in school
Help children graduate from high school
Percentage of
African
Americans who
disagree
Address bullying
Help youth prepare for college or other schooling
Help youth find financial assistance
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A follow-up survey found that only 37% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there are enough
opportunities to pair children with mentors or positive role models.
There was also considerable evidence across data sources (e.g., surveys, focus groups, and World Café
conversations) that cost was also seen as a barrier to educational resources. For example, Focus Group
comments suggest that there are high quality early childhood education opportunities available within the
community. However, the financial and time commitments required to participate in these programs was seen as
a major barrier to their utilization.
Finally, it was also perceived that there is a lack of relevance in what is currently being taught in local schools.
Specifically, there was considerable corroboration between Focus Group and World Café comments that there is
a lack of alignment between the curriculum taught in local schools and the skills needed for the available jobs
within our community.
Community Assessment
There was also a sense that education is situated in a
complex system that is influenced by political issues
that have resulted in generations of disadvantage, as
well as growing expectations that education should
accomplish more with less funding (e.g., providing
for students’ basic needs).
When asked how problems in Education came
to be, 15% of participants suggested that it
is because students are graduating without
sufficient preparation for life, and that universal
pre-kindergarten was needed to ensure a high
quality education for all students.
When asked to brainstorm about potential solutions
to problems within education, over half (55.17%) of comments were associated with the need for an individual
or organization to step forward as a “champion” who would convene educational entities (e.g., school districts,
philanthropic groups, etc.) establish a shared vision for education in the tri-county area, and to facilitate
communication between school districts.
Other solutions offered included: expanding on existing practices for
sharing best practices between schools and school districts; creating
a sustainable, and collaborative coalition that engages the family
unit, young people, and stakeholders in a common goal; increasing
the availability of outside of school supports that include education,
fun, food, and great role models; and driving a shared vision with
sustained community and political will.
“Philanthropy has to play the part
of convener around the table.”
- World Café Participant
Environmental Scan
There are currently 186 organizations
deployed across the tri-county area
providing support for early childhood and
youth education. However, resources are not
deployed evenly across the three counties
as the predominance of providers (76.34%)
are serving in Douglas County.
COUNTY
# OF
PROVIDERS PERCENTAGE
The highest quantities of providers serving in the tri-county
area are focused on the domains of child enrichment (e.g., day
camps, and scouting program; 23.66%), parental support (e.g.,
parenting skill classes; 18.28%), and early childhood education
(15.05%).
PROVIDER CATEGORY
Douglas
142
76.3
Enrichment Programs
Pottawattamie
27
17
35.0
Parent Support
22.0
Early Childhood Education
186
100
Day Care
Sarpy
Grand Total
Leadership/Mentoring
Sports Associated
Tutoring/Academic Focused
Grand Total
# OF
PROGRAMS PERCENTAGE
44
34
28
23.6
18.2
15.0
27
24
16
13
14.5
186
100
12.9
8.6
6.9
Community Assessment
JOBS & OPPORTUNITY SUMMARY
A majority of the people that we surveyed (75%) said that jobs, wages, and cost of living were a major issue in
their community. Jobs and employment were of particular concern to low-income residents. Respondents with a
household income of $35,000 or less were more likely than those with higher incomes to view the economy as a
problem. Even higher-income earners were concerned about economic issues, with 67% of those with household
incomes of $150,000 or more saying the economy was a minor or major concern.
The targeted survey showed that 43.5% of the respondents were unemployed, with some indicating they
continued to look for work and others not currently looking. The unemployment rate in Nebraska in December
2013 was 3.6%, and the national unemployment rate was 6.7% (Nebraska Department of Labor, https://dol.
nebraska.gov).
Employment Status from Targeted Survey
0%
10%
Full-Time
20%
One Part-Time Job
30%
922 Participants
40%
Multiple Part-Time Jobs
50%
Seasonal Job
60%
70%
Unemployed-Looking
80%
90%
100%
Unemployed-Not Looking
Educational attainment and having a job are clearly linked: a closer look at employment showed that only 50%
of respondents from the targeted survey with less than an 8th grade education were employed. 33% of those
with 9-12th grade completion (without a diploma or GED) were employed. 75% of those with a technical degree
and 83% of respondents with a bachelor’s degree were employed.
Employment status clearly relates to a families’ ability to make ends meet and be financially secure. Of those
who participated in our initial community-wide survey, 55% of respondents reported that having enough money
to make ends meet was a problem in their household. Respondents age 18 to 24, and those with an 8th grade
education or less had the highest percentage who said that having
enough money to make ends meet was a problem.
Not having enough money to make ends meet meant the families in our
focus groups had to make some very difficult decisions. Participants
talked about having to prioritize which bills to pay while letting others
go unpaid, relying on food pantries, and not having enough money to
do fun things with their kids.
91%
of respondents with
an 8th grade education or less
have trouble making ends meet.
According to our community-wide survey results, making ends meet is partly a result of workers not finding
adequate employment opportunities. Though a majority (74%) of employed respondents said they currently work
35 or more hours a week, only 31% respondents with an 8th grade education or less work 35 hours or more.
For the most part, participants in our surveys wanted the opportunity to work more. From the targeted survey,
we learned that 54% of respondents said they would like to work more hours per week. Respondents with less
than an 8th grade education (70%), 18 to 24 years olds (78%), and Hispanic respondents (85%) also said they
would like to work more hours than they currently do.
When asked why they don’t work more hours, 11% of respondents said they work less than 35 hours a week
because they cannot find a full time position. A majority of employed Hispanic respondents (79%) said they
worked fewer than 35 hours because they couldn’t find full-time work.
Community Assessment
As was revealed in World Café discussions, working
more and making more money may be a detriment to
workers if doing so means losing essential benefits.
The “funding cliff” was discussed often as an issue
for low-income families. To combat the issue, it was
recommended that benefits be tapered off so families
with a growing income are not left with inadequate
social supports.
“We need to connect the right jobs with the right
people by bridging the skills gap and bringing
the private sector and job seekers together.”
- World Café Participant
Barriers to sustainable employment were discussed in our focus groups and World Cafés. Participants cited
a number of barriers to better job opportunities including: lack of education, lack of transportation, lack of
work experience, inadequate childcare, inadequate funding for job training, lack of knowledge of how to create
resumes and cover letters, institutional racism, having a criminal record, and not being fluent in English.
Participants in the world café also talked about the issue of skill and job alignment. Many felt that there is a
discrepancy between the skills needed to get a job and the education and training that people in our community
are receiving. It is a challenge to get more workers into the kinds of employment that pay enough to cover their
bills, especially in an economic environment where low-income jobs do not pay livable wages.
A potentially-viable method to improve the employment opportunities of lower-skilled workers is through
increased education. A large percentage (72.1%) of respondents to the targeted survey indicated that they
would be interested in job or vocational training, apprenticeship programs, or continuing education. People were
asked what prevented them from furthering their education or getting more training, and approximately half
pointed to cost as a barrier.
Reason for not pursuing education (Comment Percentage)*
Costs too much
Not enough time with work & family
Don’t know about programs
Life-changing events
Have to work too many hours in my job
Learning is a challenge for me
We also asked participants in the targeted survey to tell us what would help them to pursue further education.
Over half pointed to the need for financial support and scholarships. Flexibility from employers and from
educational providers was also listed as a key condition for pursuing more education.
Form of Support (Comment Percentage)*
Financial support, scholarships
Flexibility from employer
Transportation
Daycare
Flexible school schedule
Other
*Respondents could choose more than one category
Improved education may not be sufficient to create the conditions for more opportunities for low-skilled workers
and high-risk families. Participants in the world café discussed the need for the pubic and private sector to work
together.
Community Assessment
The environmental scan showed there were 59 organizations working in the field of jobs and opportunities. Most
of the organizations were focused on job preparation.
JOBS & OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS
Vocational rehabilitation
Pre-Job guidance
Business assistance centers
Career counseling
# OF PROGRAMS
TYPES
11
10
9
8
JOBS & OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS
Job search/placement
Career exploration
Disability-related training
# OF PROGRAMS
TYPES
8
6
7
Community Assessment
INTEGRATION & ANALYSIS
Community Assessment
As part of the data collection and analysis of needs facing our community, we codified a set of persistent issues
that, when analyzed together, are both complicated and complex, especially when considered systemically.
Persistent issues are usually both complicated and complex. Solutions applied are typically attempted in
simplistic ways, which is why “solving” these issues is rarely realized. Complication and complexity are not
necessarily related and often the terms are incorrectly used interchangeably, so the clarification of them bears
sharing. The sources of complicated issues, or problems, are able to be identified and tackled individually (Poli,
2013). In contrast, complex problems result from systems of several interrelating causes that cannot easily be
isolated. To address a complex problem, a system must be employed to address – and, likely more realistically
influence – the issues.
Specific to the problems facing our community, and more specifically, our most vulnerable citizens, seven
themes were identified that are sometimes complex, most times complicated, and a few that are both complex
and complicated. The seven themes identified through the research were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Transportation – Access to transportation, costs, mismatches to community needs
Healthcare – Access to healthcare, mental health services
Education – Early childhood
Safety – Crime, violence, gangs, drugs, domestic violence
Education – School-aged children
Jobs and Opportunity – Skills mismatch & development, available jobs, wages, adult training & education
Basic Needs – Making ends meet, access to food, utility payment assistance, housing
All, however, are systemic and overlapping because each of the themes we explored include components that
can act both as a root cause and a symptom. Addressing any one of the issues that arise within a theme requires
acknowledging the influence of the others. For example, securing reliable transportation can impact a person’s
ability to make it to doctor’s appointments, access healthy food options, and secure and maintain quality
employment. Education and skill gaps can lead to un- and/or under-employment and an inability to secure
affordable health care.
Transportation
Though transportation challenges may be a symptom of other issues relating to poverty and economic hurdles,
it was identified as a consistent barrier to successfully addressing issues raised while examining other themes.
Specifically, community members without reliable transportation options spend an inordinate amount of
time planning how to get places, waiting on transportation options to get them there, and are limited in
their activities as a result. People are not able to get to desired locations for necessary errands such as food
shopping; these are limited in the locations where they can consistently get to jobs and places of business, and
are unable to have access to all health care providers. Limited transportation options also affect families’ ability
to have kids in after-school activities, and parental engagement in school activities, and their efforts to address
transportation issues and options takes time away from other important things.
Healthcare
Community members made clear that they have serious concerns with the access to and the cost of both
diagnostic and preventative healthcare. Furthermore, many in our community have issues with not having
adequate health and dental care coverage, and they struggle to address and understand the complexities of our
current systems. The costs of healthcare keep some members of our community from seeking medical care for
themselves and sometimes members of their family. Unaddressed health issues can have effects on the costs of
care and the pervasiveness of chronic health issues, as well as people’s abilities to contribute to our community.
For example, unaddressed health situations have a strong influence on students’ attendance, which research has
demonstrated has a strong link to student performance; lowered student performance affects future opportunity
for continued education and therefore, career options.
Community Assessment
Education – Early Childhood
Early childhood education is important and valued in the community. There are, however, issues with the
availability of and/or qualifications for having children in high quality centers in many neighborhoods. More
often, the costs and time needed to be associated with high quality options are barriers to parents to get
their children and families involved. Additionally, the data showed that parents are sometimes not aware that
newborns can benefit from enriching environments, based on thinking that their “children are not old enough
to begin,” even when children are 18- and 24-months. Because research has demonstrated the strong link of
high-quality early education experiences and student performance in school – not only at the entry point in
kindergarten, but in widening gaps along the K-12 experience – it is important to ensure that high quality and
affordable options are available.
Safety
It is not surprising that safety is a concern for almost all community members, especially those living in
certain areas of town, and those confronted with multiple challenges (e.g., being underemployed, having less
education). Young adult crime was cited as the most personally experienced by those participating in surveys
and focus groups. Many advised that safety concerns affected their ability to let their kids play outside, how
they approached going out at night, and how comfortable they were in their own homes. Community members
also shared their belief that crime was a symptom of lack of opportunities for young people, a broader need for
jobs and better employment, and a lack of strong families. Study participants called for business investments,
educational experiences and opportunities, further investment in some of the current solutions, and an increase
in mentors. Some also reminded us that crime can have lasting effects; community members with previous
involvement in crime find that their bad choices have an impact on the kinds of jobs and employment options
they have for the remainder of their working lives.
Education – School-Aged Children
Education was referenced as a potential solution to a number of issues examined in the Community Assessment.
Although it may not be adversely influencing every household, most participants in the World Café concluded
that issues with education are a community-wide concern. Experiences with children’s education and access for
educational supports (e.g., mentoring, high quality after-school or extended learning opportunities) differ greatly
based on community members’ ethnicity and race. Many participants in the community assessment advised
that support for family and parent engagement, and the education of how families can best support their
children’s education was recommended. Many people also shared that there was a mismatch between the skills
students are getting in our schools, and what skills are needed for them to have job and career options. There
was a pervasive request that a specific institution become the convening entity to establish a shared vision of
community-wide education, and that will facilitate communication among school districts.
Jobs & Opportunity
There were multiple mentions of the words “jobs”, “opportunity”, and “employment” throughout the
assessment. Many times, the lack of opportunities were highlighted; other times it was explained that jobs
are available, but the knowledge, skills, abilities, etc. (KSAOs) were not present in many of those who want
to be hired. The mismatch of KSAOs and job experience with available opportunities in the community were
mentioned with respect to youth and education, as well as most adults who responded to the targeted survey;
subject matter experts in unemployment concurred. When asked about barriers to sustainable employment,
the reasons offered related to transportation, lack of education, lack of work experience, inadequate childcare
options, and no funding for job skill development. Additionally, it was highlighted that criminal histories, even
when from a young age, severely limited options for the remainder of peoples’ working futures. Members in our
community who responded to the targeted survey overwhelmingly desire the opportunities for more education,
jobs, and skills training to meet the needs of local job options.
Throughout the community assessment process, we consistently heard and saw the words “communication”,
“coordination”, “convening”, and “collaboration”. These words were used across the themes and by multiple
types of participants (e.g., survey respondents, providers). The participants at the World Cafés often spoke to
the idea that we have enough resources to solve problems and serve vulnerable people, but we don’t properly
Community Assessment
bring those services to bear in a coordinated and strategic manner. This was echoed in the focus groups and
community conversations where participants talked about not being aware of all of the services available to
them, which reflects inadequate communication between service providers and the population they hope to
serve.
There was a consensus within the World Cafés that the problems facing our community are concentrated around
our most vulnerable citizens (e.g., women, children, working poor, immigrant, low-skilled laborers), but that
the solutions to these problems call for city-wide collaboration. Violence, for example, may be concentrated in
certain zip codes and neighborhoods, but addressing that violence means bringing together in a meaningful
way our parents, schools, neighborhood leaders, police, corporate leaders, and our city and state politicians. A
balanced approach would acknowledge the expertise and energy within a neighborhood and leverage the same
from outside stakeholders.
Many of the people we spoke with in focus groups and community conversations felt invisible to the communityat-large. The sense was that the problems they were experiencing did not have significance or reach into the
more affluent neighborhoods. It is critical that those who experience the issues in our community be involved in
addressing their needs; it is also important that they understand that their issues are our community’s issues,
and are therefore something of concern to all residents of the metro area.
There is a great deal of passion, energy, and expertise available in each of the themes that were explored. The
people brought together throughout the multiple opportunities for input during this assessment process were
eager to share their experiences and ideas, with the hopes of generating a more collaborative approach to
addressing our community’s problems. Though it is acknowledged that generational poverty and the related
issues identified in the Community Assessment are and will continue to be challenges for the near future, the
professionals, subject matter experts, and community members who engaged in our efforts were confident
that real change is possible. Similarly, they stated that a combination of things - best practices and creative
solutions (both original and quality), the engagement of multiple community leaders, encouragement of longterm and targeted investment, a focus on multiple forms of education (e.g., vocational, college-bound), and
highlighting role models in our at-risk communities can make a very real, positive and lasting impact.
Community Assessment
RATIONALE
Community Assessment
Taking into consideration the data collected, integrated and analyzed, the following section details the logical
basis United Way of the Midlands’ board and staff employed for selecting the priorities areas.
Cross Cutting Considerations
1. Be clear about success – the core objective must be to solve the problem rather than simply expand a
successful program
2. Focus on a well-defined unit of impact
3. Be open to capitalization
4. Encourage innovation to drive down costs
5. Focus on driving demand – can’t just have a ‘build it and they will come’ attitude; unlocking demand can
be a game-changer
6. Consider investing in new capabilities; fund training for staff or agency personnel, hire new people, or
adopt new technology or stronger financial management systems
7. Continue to engage the community; knowledge of local circumstances and local players can be critical to
helping a solution spread and stick
8. Partner across sectors; government, non-profits, business
9. Recruit and engage co-investors
10. Consider long-term investments: grantees need consistent, multi-year support in order to build strong
leadership, effective operations and community partnerships necessary to scale impact
11. Perhaps more than anything, movements need some flexible support in the form of long-term and
unrestricted funding. Sometimes this can be rapid capacity building support – technology systems,
board training
Selection Criteria
When considering the data and information collected through the assessment, the following were taken into
account: the size of opportunity for making an impact in the community, the fit of the opportunity with United
Way, UWM’s ability to influence funding and policies, UWM’s capabilities and capacity, consistency with UWM
values and community commitment to the community’s interest and commitment.
Community Assessment
High
Organizational Fit*
*alignment
(current capabilities
& capacity)
Low Priority
No degree of capability
and/or capacity fit
Double Down
Good fit, high opportunity. Invest in
opportunities in this ‘sweet spot’
Low
Opportunity and Fit
Avoid
Any action here will not contribute
to impact goals
Partner
Would require an expansion of
capabilities and/or capacity
Low
High
Opportunity*
*attractiveness (growth potential/leverage/impact potential)
Opportunity:
1. To what extent does this priority meet the needs of our strategic plan?
2. To what degree would ‘system’ advances in the area create long term change/impact in the community?
3. How likely is it that the ‘market’ would support increasing investment/resources?
4. Is this ‘system’ approach offered by others?
Fit:
1. To what degree does this priority align with our long-term strategy?
2. To what extent does our current infrastructure align with the stated need?
3. How feasible would it be for us to develop/marshal resources for this need?
Influence:
1. Is UWM able to raise and channel resources towards this (these) opportunities?
2. Can we fund it sufficiently?
3. Are there multiple providers in the space? (Opportunities for coordination)
4. Are the providers multi-faceted (gov’t, private, etc.) that could benefit from collaboration?
5. Are there systems (e.g., through organizations) in place to support the work?
6. Are there resources needed other than $ (volunteers, advocacy)
Capability and Capacity:
1. UWM has the capability (i.e., a feature, staff, or process that can be developed or improved) to engage
partners and execute on strategy
2. UWM has the capacity (does UWM have enough resources to deploy) to engage partners and execute on
strategy
Consistent with UWM values:
1. Does it have the potential to increase efforts/resources towards prevention/root cause work?
Community Leadership:
1. Is there community energy?
2. Is there strong community leadership?
3. Is there a unique role United Way can play?
4. Is there a need for a stronger system approach?
Community Assessment
CONCLUSION
Community Assessment
United Way of the Midlands (UWM) has long history of service to the Omaha metropolitan area. From its very
beginning in 1923, it was a true community-based and community-generated enterprise – a collaboration of
business and nonprofit organizations. Its earliest mission was to serve the most vulnerable members of our
community.
More than 90 years later, UWM remains strong and provides critical support for programs that serve children,
adults and families in need.
But just as our community has evolved in that time, so too must United Way, if it intends to make a measurable
and positive impact in a time that presents very different challenges to its citizens.
To meet those challenges head-on, UWM embarked on strategic planning, with the high engagement from some
of our community’s top executives and leading citizens. To be most effective in 2014 and beyond, the group
called upon United Way to create focus and priority on a finite number of issues, to maximize its resources and
generate measurable results.
The community-wide assessment of human needs was launched, to ensure that the organization keenly
understood current conditions, and how its unique strengths could be brought-to-bear on more targeted areas of
challenge.
With the assessment’s completion, the voices of 4,700 of the community’s residents have helped bring that
clarity to United Way’s future work.
From their raised voices came a number of themes.
Without hesitation, the UWM Board agreed that addressing Basic Needs – food, shelter, healthcare and safety—
would remain a key part of the mission. Without resources to meet them, people struggle to survive, let alone
succeed. A board-directed advisory council will consider how UWM can best address these needs going forward.
Funding is just one component. As revealed in the assessment, there is also a need for United Way to convene
other community resources, promote collaboration and be a central source of information.
The next important step, according to its volunteer leadership, is to provide opportunities for success, through
programs that support children during their academic years and help prepare young people for productive
careers.
This focus is known as “United by Strength.” Its two-lane approach is designed to help greater numbers of
our neighbors complete school and career training successfully, increase their financial stability and live
independent lives.
“Classroom Ready” support will help remove the barriers that local children face in learning – give them a safe
place outside of the classroom to practice what they’ve learned, get extra help on challenging subjects and help
them build skills that lead to school success. United Way will also support programs that empower parents with
the tools they need to help their children succeed. United Way looks forward to working with school districts and
other education-focused community agencies.
“Workforce Ready” efforts will involve collaborating with other local organizations to provide young adults with
a choice of high-quality paths to train for and secure good jobs. This means high school graduates have the
skills needed to succeed in today’s and tomorrow’s workplaces, and have an understanding of the behavior traits
employers’ value. The goal is to help more of our young neighbors secure a good job and become self-sufficient.
A shared community vision is critical to our strength in these areas. United Way is part of a team of nonprofit,
public and civic organizations working together to develop community-wide goals. We’re determining the best
ways to measure success at a community-wide level, and how each group’s unique strengths can be leveraged to
achieve the goals set.
Community Assessment
The team working toward this cumulative impact includes the Aksarben Foundation, Greater Omaha Chamber
of Commerce, Iowa West Foundation, Omaha Community Foundation, Omaha Public Schools, Peter Kiewit
Foundation, Sherwood Foundation and United Way of the Midlands.
As we move forward with this important work, United Way will be proactive in seeking out the very best programs
with the strongest outcomes among new and currently-funded organizations. Funding aligned with the new
priorities will begin with the July 2015-June 2016 investment cycle.
To ensure its continued understanding of local community conditions, United Way of the Midlands Board
intends to participate in a community needs assessment every three to four years.
When we work together, as a community, the results will benefit everyone who calls the Omaha, Bellevue and
Council Bluffs metropolitan area “home”. It is one of the many things that makes our community strong.
For more information, please visit www.UnitedWayMidlands.org
APPENDIX A – SOURCES CITED
Community Assessment
1. AIM Institute. 2009. Low-Income, First Generation Students. Omaha, NE.
2. AIM Institute. 2009. Progressive and Regressive Aspects of information. Omaha, NE.
3. AIM Institute. 2009. A 15-Year Look at Business Requirements for Educational Services in Information
Technology. Omaha, NE.
4. American Red Cross. 2010. Facts at a Glance: 2010
5. Benson Ames Master Plan. Benson-Ames Alliance Progress Report: 2005-2011. Omaha, NE.
6. Breazile, Melissa. (2011). Kids Count in Nebraska 2011 Report. Omaha, NE: Voices for Children in
Nebraska.
7. Brown-Black Coalition of Greater Omaha. (2007). Preliminary 2007 Douglas County Health Disparities
Report Card. Omaha, NE: Brown-Black Coalition of Greater Omaha.
8. Building Bright Futures. ND. Mentoring Research (website).
9. Building Bright Futures. 2005. Nebraska Early Childhood Policy Study. Omaha, NE.
10. City of Omaha. 2012. Omaha-Council Bluffs Consortium Consolidated Submission for Community
Development Programs: Action Plan 2012. Omaha, NE.
11. City of Omaha. 2011. Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element - Executive Summary. Omaha, NE.
12. Community Action of Nebraska. (2011). State and Regional Community Assessment Report 2010.
Retrieved from http://www.canhelp.org/uploads/pdf/2011_community_assessment_report.pdf
13. The Condition of College and Career Readiness l. 2011 Nebraska.
14. Creighton University. 2007. The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Performing Arts on the City of Omaha.
Omaha, NE.
15. Downtown Business Improvement District Association. 2011. Downtown Parking Study Priorities.
Omaha, NE.
16. Downtown Business Improvement District Association. ND. Omaha Downtown Improvement District
Association 2012/2013 Work Plan and Budget. Omaha, NE.
17. The Economic Impact of the Nebraska Early Care and Education Industry.
18. Family Housing Advisory Services - Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Coalition. 2012. The Poor We Will
Always Have: A look at the new knowledge-based economy, and its effect on low to middle income
individuals. Omaha, NE.
19. Greater Omaha After School Alliance - Collective for Youth. 2011. Omaha After School Initiative Program
Resource Guide. Omaha, NE.
20. Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce. 2011. Greater Omaha Profile: Demographics. Omaha, NE.
21. Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce. 2011. 2012 Economic Outlook. Omaha, NE.
22. Heartland Family Service. 1998. Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of
the Leading Causes of Death in Adults. Omaha, NE.
23. Hunger Free Heartland. Website.
Community Assessment
24. Iowa Department of Education. (2013). Iowa Public School PK-12 Students Eligible for Free
and Reduced-Price Lunch by District. Retrieved from https://www.educateiowa.gov/documents/districtlevel/2013/06/2012-2013-iowa-public-school-pk-12-students-eligible-free-and
25. Iowa Western Community College. 2007. Transfer Behavior Among Iowa Community College Students and
Post-College Earnings of Iowa Community College Students.
26. Live Well Omaha. (2010). Community Report Card 2010: a report on the health of residents of Douglas
county, Nebraska. Retrieved from http://www.douglascountyhealth.com/health-statistics/communityreport-card-2010
27. Metro Area Continuum of Care for the Homeless. (2012). Point in Time Count Analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.macchomeless.org/pdf/2012%20Point%20in%20Time%20Analysis.pdf
28. Metro Area Continuum of Care for the Homeless.2007. Homelessness in the Omaha/Council Bluffs metro
area. Omaha, NE.
29. Metropolitan Area Planning Agency. 2011. Brownfields 2011 Assessment. Omaha, NE.
30. Moody, Craig. (2012). Are We Building a Better Omaha? Omaha, NE: Verdis Group.
31. Nebraska Appleseed. 2010. Midlands Voices: Child welfare reform needs restructuring in Nebraska.
Omaha, NE.
32. Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in Public Interest. (2010). Nebraska Appleseed’s Top Jobs for
Families 2010. Retrieved from http://neappleseed.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/05/
Top-Jobs.pdf
33. Nebraska Arts Council. 2011. Re-Investing in Arts Education: Winning America’s Future Through Creative
Schools Summary and Recommendations.
34. Nebraska Children and Families Foundation. 2012. Project Everlast. Omaha, NE.
35. Nebraska Department of Education. (2013). NE 2012-13 Free and Reduced Price Lunch Counts by
School. Retrieved from http://www.education.ne.gov/dataservices/Data_and_Information.html
36. Nebraska Increment Financing Authority. 2012. Nebraska Profile - Executive Summary.
37. Nebraskans for the Arts. 2012. Arts and Economic Prosperity IV.
38. Nebraska Sustainable Leadership Workshop. 2008. Best Practices for Sustainable Community
Development.
39. Omaha by Design. 2012. New type of health study under way in douglas county. Omaha, NE.
40. Open Sky Policy Institute. 2012. Tax Cuts Would Come at Great Cost to Educating Nebraska Children.
41. Open Sky Policy Institute. 2012. Tax Cuts Would Come at Great Cost to Educating Nebraska Children.
42. Open Sky Policy Institute. 2012. Looking for Clarity: An Overview of Nebraska Budget and Tax Policy.
43. Professional Research Consultants, Inc. (2011). Community Health Needs Assessment: Douglas, Sarpy &
Cass Counties, Nebraska and Pottawattamie County, Iowa. Omaha, NE: Professional Research
Consultants, Inc.
44. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2013). 2013 County Health Rankings National Data. Retrieved from
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/rankings/data/ne, http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/rankings/
data/ia
Community Assessment
45. Scanlan, Martha. (2009). 2009 Iowa Uniform Crime Report: Incident-Based. Des Moines, IA: Iowa
Department of Public Safety.
46. South Omaha Neighborhood Alliance. 2012. Societal Impact of Lead Exposure Omaha Overview.
Omaha, NE.
47. State of NE - Dept of Econ Dev (Battelle Study). 2010. Growing Jobs, Industries, and Talent: A
Competitive Advantage Assessment and Strategy for Nebraska.
48. Tri-Faith Initiative. 2012. “An Invitation to a TriFaith Neighborhood (A) & (B)”
49. United States Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 Census Data [retrieved data for Douglas, Pottawattamie, and
Sarpy counties]. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
50. United States Census Bureau. (2011-12). American Community Survey: 2011-2012 Data Releases.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2012_release/, http://www.census.
gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2011_release/
51. United Way/ UNO’s Financial Stability Partnership. 2009. The Impact of Payday Lending on Omaha’s
Economy. Omaha, NE.
52. United Way of the Midlands. (2010). Greater Omaha Human Care Profile. Omaha, NE: United Way of
the Midlands.
53. United Way of the Midlands. (2011). Strategic Planning Indicators [includes data from U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey, Nebraska and Iowa
Departments of Education, Nebraska Crime Commission, Iowa Department of Public Safety, Metro Area
Continuum of Care for the Homeless]. Omaha, NE: United Way of the Midlands.
54. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. 2004. Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts: Impressions from Public
Hearings. Lincoln, NE.
55. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. 2007. By The People: Dialogues In Democracy Immigration and
Nebraska. Lincoln, NE.
56. University of Nebraska at Omaha. 2012. Demographic Characteristics of the Latino Population in the
Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area. Omaha, NE.
57. University of Nebraska at Omaha. 2012. 2011-2012 Omaha Gang Assessment. Omaha, NE.
58. University of Nebraska at Omaha. 2008. Nebraska’s Immigrant Population: Economic and Fiscal Impacts.
Omaha, NE.
59. UNMC College of Public Health. 2012. The Affordable Care Act of 2010: A Brief Summary. Omaha, NE.
60. UNMC College of Public Health. 2012. Analysis of National Health Policies Directed at Immigrants in the
United States. Omaha, NE.
61. UNMC College of Public Health. 2011. The Midlands LGBT Needs Assessment Community Report.
Omaha, NE.
62. Urban League of Nebraska. 2008. Celebrating the Past, Charting the Future: Omaha’s African American
Community. Omaha, NE.
63. Women’s Fund of Omaha. 2011. The Women and Leadership in Omaha. 2011 Update. Omaha, NE.
64. Women’s Fund of Omaha. 2010. Intimate Partner Violence in Omaha: An assessment of survivors’ needs
and available services. Omaha, NE.
Community Assessment
APPENDIX B – BIOGRAPHIES
Community Assessment
Deb Burnight
Deb Burnight, President of Facilitated Resources, is a certified professional facilitator with over twenty-five
years of experience in community collaboration, board and corporate training, and facilitation. A graduate of
the University of Iowa and a former elementary and middle school teacher, Deb blends a rich background from
her work with educational, private, government, corporate and not-for-profit sectors with solid facilitation skills
to help groups communicate and work together effectively. Deb is professionally affiliated with the International
Association of Facilitators and the ToP (Technology of Participation) Trainers Network. She is a principal of
Prairie River Partners training consortium and serves as a regional training registrar and national Mentor Trainer
for the Institute of Cultural Affairs-USA.
John Delany
Most recently, John Delany and his firm Giraffe LLC, partnered with Creighton University in the development of
its strategic plan. He has also worked locally with OBI Creative and the Business Ethics Alliance.
John developed Strategy in a Box®, an eight-week strategy development program for both businesses and nonprofits. In the three plus years it’s been in the market, Strategy in a Box has been used to facilitate over 300
strategic growth plans, from start-ups to entities over $6.5B in revenue.
Mr. Delany has facilitated strategic growth programs in these and many other industries: global agribusiness,
meat and poultry processing, electrical component manufacturing, trailer manufacturing, dentistry, physician
practices, hospital accreditation, IT services, factory automation, commercial and residential moving, consumer
package goods, property and casualty insurance, the automotive aftermarket, logistics, data and records
management, custom engineering, credit cards, banking, retailing, trade association management, sanitation
and janitorial maintenance, distribution, landscaping, management training, food processing, chemical
manufacturing, fashion apparel, sporting goods, hospitality, sales promotion, assisted living, care for the
profoundly disabled, social services agencies, pharmaceuticals, investment advisory services.
Before launching Giraffe LLC, Mr. Delany was head of growth planning for BearingPoint and before that
Arthur Andersen. Prior to consulting, Mr. Delany was head of strategy for Sears’ department stores. He also
worked in strategy and marketing positions for The Bank of New York, Norwest Banks and Fallon Advertising in
Minneapolis. Prior to Fallon, Mr. Delany was Assistant Professor in the School of Business and in the College of
Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota.
Mr. Delany speaks and writes for business forums and professional associations. He holds a Ph.D. from Yale and
a B.A. from Brown.
Will Meinen
Will Meinen has a Master’s in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of Nebraska at Omaha
(UNO) where he studied research methodology and measurement. He worked for six years as an Evaluation/
Research Specialist for the Omaha Public Schools evaluating educational grants, programs, and initiatives. For
the past four years he has worked as a consultant for the Sherwood Foundation on a project called the Omaha
Data Collaborative. The work has focused on supporting grant-funded agencies to improve practices related to
data collection and data usage. Mr. Meinen has worked as an adjunct faculty member teaching I/O Psychology,
Research Methods, and Organizational Communication at UNO, College of St. Mary’s, Buena Vista, and Iowa
Western Community College.
Scott Schmidtbonne
Scott SchmidtBonne has over ten years experience conducting applied research and program evaluations for
entities including: Kansas State University; the Nebraska Department of Corrections; American Foods Group,
LLC; Omaha Public Schools; the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties; Building Bright Futures;
and the Sherwood Foundation. Scott’s experience in these contexts have addressed both system level issues as
well as those at a functional unit level. In addition to these applied experiences, Scott also possesses a Ph.D.
level of education in Organizational Psychology, Psychometrics, and Statistics.
Community Assessment